That's just nonsense. Everyone knows coconut antimatter retrograde marshmallows only flute cats between hairdresser Barbie doll lawnmower Ricky Martin.
I dunno. Has Obama come out in favor of it yet?
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.
The less humans on this planet, the better.
Feel free to exit at any time to help mitigate the problem. I plan on staying around as long as possible if for no other reason than just to piss off misanthrops like you.
Maybe they mean the "Linda Lovelace" test?
Unfortunately, she's dead. Doesn't take much intelligence to be dead.
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.
I've had a few of my older CFLs fail though but generally only after quite a few years. Duty cycle makes a huge difference. I just replaced two incandescent bulbs that were supplied by our builder almost twenty years ago. We just don't use those particular lights very often. I only wish I'd bought more cheap, incandescent bulbs before they were outlawed since they are fine for lights that are rarely used.
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!
God made humans rational beings.
Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.
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.