Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Verilog? (Score 1) 196

by philip.paradis (#47422827) Attached to: IEEE Spectrum Ranks the Top Programming Languages

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.

Comment: Re:Verilog? (Score 1) 196

by philip.paradis (#47412741) Attached to: IEEE Spectrum Ranks the Top Programming Languages

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.

Comment: Most recent bulbs still in package (Score 1) 228

by DaveAtFraud (#47412709) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

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.

Cheers,
Dave

Comment: Re:Verilog? (Score 1) 196

by philip.paradis (#47405363) Attached to: IEEE Spectrum Ranks the Top Programming Languages

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.

Comment: Re:Security through legislation is no security at (Score 1) 204

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.

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981

Working...