A federal judge has ruled the mass (meta)data collection activities of the NSA to be unconstitutional. The RNC has pushed for legislation to explicitly declare it so. The more disturbing point here is that the Constitution, which explicitly defines limits to the powers of government, existed long before the NSA. It has simply been ignored, and entirely too many people seem to be ignorant of this fact or simply don't care. Given the protections afforded in the Constitution, I challenge you to justify the legality of massive collection of private information on United States citizens by government agents without warrant or due process.

To clarify my last response, I once wore a uniform for this nation and swore an oath uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have no interest in staying in a nation full of people who are completely ignorant of their rights and obligations as citizens, a nation where the majority of the population is far too apathetic to care about those rights being trampled. I'll be here as long as it takes to build a solid foundation elsewhere, which is a work in progress, and I'm gone after that. I'm a fairly smart guy, and I have fairly diverse skills that I can utilize anywhere on the planet to provide for my loved ones. There are still a few places left where people care about individualism and rights. Not many, but a few.

Fully agreed. As a father of three children, I've been decidedly unhappy about the way things have been heading for a long time now. My first inclination is to simply leave, taking my loved ones with me. In fact, that's the current plan, although I have a habit of making lots of noise about Constitutional rights on a daily basis, and I may well get myself into trouble because of it. Should that happen, so be it. I may be on the way out, but I'm not backing down while I'm still here.

I'm 33, and I've never seen a juvenile female mowing lawns for money. I have known grown women who run landscaping businesses, however.

That's just nonsense. Everyone knows coconut antimatter retrograde marshmallows only flute cats between hairdresser Barbie doll lawnmower Ricky Martin.

Indeed, Machete kills.

To repeat myself: there is no single "ordinary SQL." SQL standardization has gone through many iterations: SQL-86, SQL-89, SQL-92, SQL:1999, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, SQL:2008, SQL:2011. The SQL standard is presently maintained by ISO/IEC JTC 1. Your original statement was "SQL certainly is not turing complete," and that is a false statement. Under the ISO standards, it is absolutely possible to create a Turing machine with SQL. Examples have been provided, including (but not limited to) one written "entirely in SQL:2008-conformant SQL." The degree to which any given database engine may adhere to ISO standards may vary, but by adhering to said standards, there exist code examples which demonstrate Turing completeness. You're only insulting yourself by continuing to refuse to accept reality, but if you're still in doubt, per the previously supplied references you're welcome to purchase SQL standards documents from ISO, IEC or ANSI.

As you are a practitioner of Aikido, I'm genuinely surprised by the direction this entire commend thread has taken. I am looking forward to your next reply, though.

You should be asking yourself what your problem is. Clearly, you still haven't read the referenced materials; proprietary extensions are not needed. Here's something else to read while you're at it: SQL Standardization. There is no single "standard SQL." SQL standardization has gone through many iterations: SQL-86, SQL-89, SQL-92, SQL:1999, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, SQL:2008, SQL:2011. The SQL standard is presently maintained by ISO/IEC JTC 1.

So yes, your initial statement (which was "SQL certainly is not turing complete") was and remains provably false, and you're still simply unable to admit your error. Put down the shovel. Do you conduct your professional affairs with the same level of reasoning you're demonstrating here? Incidentally, appealing to the authority of "hundreds of articles" you claim will show you're right doesn't help your cause any, as the majority of such articles will be nothing more than "Bob's Blog" posts and will be equally based on ignorance. Please feel free to keep arguing, though I still recommend taking a break to read the originally referenced materials in their entirety.

You should do so because you've proven that you're capable of not only once, but twice, commenting on a topic that you're unqualified to speak on. Will you continue to refuse to read the referenced materials, reply again, and hence continue to demonstrate your willful ignorance? Your initial statement was provably false, and you're simply unable to admit your error. That's pathetic.

You clearly didn't actually read the material provided. Please read it, in its entirety, and let me know when you're done. Cheers!

Indeed, Turing Machine in SQL is a really neat five part series on demonstrating Turing completeness in SQL. Fabien Coelho does a really nice job of walking the reader through the various stages.

You're incorrect. Please see Cyclic Tag System and Turing Machine in SQL.

You must have stopped reading after the second sentence of my post. Please allow me to repeat the third sentence:

You're missing the point. Those who control the surface of the sphere of influence control its contents.