Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:58:34 -0700
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:14:47 GMT, paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>i thought that the long message about IDENTITY being an exposed PHYSICAL
>indicator was more mystical than logical. i'd say your message is
Not mystical at all. If you expose physical details and they get used, you have lock-in.
>closer to natural logic, even if Access is flawed. don't claim to know
>the answer, since the question, if i've got it right makes no sense, ie.
>which should we prefer, a generated key, or a 'natural' one? all
>depends on the situation. my own opinion at the moment is that
>databases don't have to be global to be useful. in fact, local
>databases may be safer. a few months ago i was handcuffed by an Oregon
You got handcuffed because of a local database. This was safer because why?
>state trooper who thought i was using stolen plates. fault of a
>database that didn't recognize canuck plates. on the other hand, i was
>released about an hour later after the canuck db was consulted. shudder
>to think what would have happened had there been only one, wrong, db.
Think of the consequences if the database consulted in the first place had been right.
Gene Wirchenko Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 18:58:34 CEST