On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:00 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 02 December 2004 3:14 pm, William Ballard wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:08:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > I was wondering the same thing as I was driving around today. Seems > > > like (from firsthand experience) a great way to lose a lot of data > if > > > the slightest thing goes wrong... > > > > You wouldn't use it for a 3-tiered or web app or anything like that. > > But for little < 10,000 record lists that also need relational > > integrity, a server process is overkill. I manage my Video collection > > using my little Access workalike program. Relational integrity is the > > main feature. > > You falsely assume Access maintains relational integrity in the first > place, when in reality, Access is a daily cause of data loss every > place I've ever seen it used. Whether Access maintains RI or not is irrelevant in this case. It's *supposed* to maintain RI, and use SQL, and let you create forms, blah, blah. Thus, an Access replacement should do all those things, but w/o being buggy. Certainly you could have figured that out -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. [QUOTE] Casey asked Johnson if doctors tell a woman that the abortion procedure they might use includes "sucking the brain out of the skull." "I don't think we would use those terms," Johnson said. "I think we would probably use a term like 'decompression of the skull' or 'reducing the contents of the skull.'" The judge responded, "Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?" Johnson, though, said doctors merely want to be sensitive. [/QUOTE] http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&; u=/ap/20040401/ap_on_re_us/abortion_lawsuits_31
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part