I'm 33 and have three children, two daughters and a son. I am interested in teaching them science, mathematics, literature, history, and how to think for themselves. I'm also interested in teaching each of them how to grow food, clean and shoot a rifle, clean and cook small game, and build things with their own hands. Political and economic conditions aside, I believe these are all things children should learn. What are you teaching your children?

To be perfectly clear, Snowden is actually in possession of some emails. That much has been known for some time. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I speak to the probability that he is in possession of copies of all his correspondence (extremely low), especially copies which could be authenticated via certain means. Again, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, and you're simply being disingenuous.

Owing to my prior service in uniform and long standing experience in both private and public sector information security, I have a very good idea of why he isn't in possession of those emails. I'm fairly certain you have the same understanding, but you've elected to take the disingenuous route of raising this rather ridiculous question, being secure in your belief the populace at large doesn't have the same benefit of experience. I'll ask the same question I asked you in my last reply: what do you presently do for a living, and what have you done in the past?

What's truly sad to me is the fact that you and I have agreed on so many things in the past. It's sad because I am in vehement opposition to your views in this discussion. I must ask you a simple question: what do you presently do for a living, and what have you done in the past? Thank you.

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!