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!
What I can't believe is that they compare this weak sauce single core to a NUC, it'd be like comparing a Pinto to a Porsche as they really aren't even in the same class.
If you want something crazy affordable to compare to a NUC then check out the new AMD AM1 Jaguar kits, like this you can swap CPUs but unlike this the smallest you can get is a dual core APU while for $100 you can have the quad Athlon APU and all the chips are based on the same Jaguar chips they use in the PS4 and XBone. I've built both the Sempron dual and Athlon quad and I have to say...they are fricking great! The Sempron makes a great ULV server or basic netbox while the quad makes for a decent desktop or really nice media tank. The new APUs have hardware acceleration for all the popular video formats and they are crazy low power draw so making silent systems with them is pretty trivial. the only caveat is get the faster RAM as with APUs the RAM speed makes a difference when it comes to graphics performance but other than that they are great for DIY systems on the cheap.
But units like the NUC and AM1 are why I think the days of ARM being used on anything but ultra cheapo Chinese crap are numbered, as both AMD and Intel are dipping into single digit power draw territory while having an IPC that just curbstomps ARM. I've said it before and it looks like time is proving me right, you just can't scale up ARM without blowing the power budget while both AMD and Intel are getting better with each rev on power while still keeping a huge IPC lead. If this trend continues there just won't be a point in using ARM for anything but bargain basement as they just won't have the performance to compete with AMD, much less Intel.
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 must have stopped reading after the second sentence of my post. Please allow me to repeat the third sentence:
It's a transparent and comically unenforceable attempt to keep Russian data precisely where the Russian government wants it: on servers they can put their hands on.
You're missing the point. Those who control the surface of the sphere of influence control its contents.
You're correct that the motivation is fundamentally economic, but it has nothing to do with revenue generated from Russian datacenter leases, which are less than a drop in the bucket compared to the value derived from legally guaranteed physical access to servers for Russian government representatives. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
As stated in the subject line, security through legislation is no security at all. If anything, this will weaken information security for Russians. It's a transparent and comically unenforceable attempt to keep Russian data precisely where the Russian government wants it: on servers they can put their hands on. I'm genuinely amused.
If you believe for one moment the KKK was ever or is still compromised of people who only identify with either of our nation's "favorite sports teams," you're severely in need of a bitchslap back into reality. How can you possibly be this stupid? Keep on supporting the status quo, you fucking idiot.