Here in Los Angeles, and from the looks of it in a few other cities Best Buy is doing a Trade In program. I'm thinking about taking, quite literally, a truckload of my old electronics over there and putting whatever I get towards a Plasma TV. Has anyone by chance used this program?

I've been told they are very picky.

"Technology Trade-In will only accept products in good working condition with all applicable remotes and accessories included." for example.

We accept the following Computer products for trade-in. All products must be in working condition. All trade-ins must have intact serial numbers and include all factory remotes, cables, cords and any rechargeable batteries.

Select desktops

Select laptops & notebooks

Colored (sic) monitors 14" or larger

(four years older or less)

Yeah, I'm not taking any computer stuff to them, it's all home electronics. I've got a couple of TV's, a few receivers, a second X-Box, a Radar Detector, a couple of HP laser printers. I figure even a few bucks for the stuff is better than nothing.

Yes, that's true. And? less to move or find a disposal method or even the hassle of selling.

Good luck on that apartment, BTW.

Yeah, a big part of it is that one way or another I won't have to deal with it. Even if I only get $5 for some of this stuff it's better than dealing with disposing of it.

I'm going to put all the money I get towards a Plasma TV.

Gus - from what I understand this kind of stuff is OK to discuss here; it is not just the technical support thread,but also the tech discussion thread - at least I gathered this last time I offered to move a discussion to natter.

My feeling is that the concept itself is not busted. The relational model is still the best way to handle a lot of standard business concepts. (An alternative model is out there - object orientation. But pure object oriented databases have their own problems.)

I think the best solution where the relational model makes sense from a functionality standpoint is simply better wrappers from the user stand point to hide the relationality.

For example, you could allow the user to create an customer object that contains invoices which in turn contains lines. But behind the scene, it creates seperate customer , invoice, and line item tables related via primary and foreign keys. In other words the user would think he had created one type of object, but behind the scenes three tables would be created , along with an updateable view. So when the day came (and it would) when someone needed to do stuff you that is really hard to do in a hierachical database (which is what an object oriented database really is) you would have the underlying tables available to relation querying and if need be updates in.

For further information see the debate between Date and Codd on three dimensional databases. I favor Date's view.

Not saying the relational model is perfect for everything. A CAD system or a multilevel bill of materials while possible, is a nightmare in a pure or semi-pure relational system. There is not one true database model that is equally good for every purpose.

But I maintain that for most business uses - and a whole lot of scientific and engineering one as well, the relational model is the best fit. It simply that the relational model is very counter-intuitive for many people; if you want people for whom this is the case to design and maintain their own databases you need to hide the relationality from them.

ND, I found a great group up here that takes old electronic (music and computer) equipment, teaches kids how to do electronic repair on them, rehabs them, and ships them to the Third World for use in classrooms. [link] Perhaps there's a group like that in the LA area? I get great tax deductions, and I feel good that the stuff isn't going into the landfill.

Cool. I'll look for something like that down here. I've also got some old musical gear that I should really clear out as well.

I know that a lot of the elementary schools in my area grateully took any old computer equipment to teach the kids on. So that's an option too.