In databases, we use tables to store information and sequel queries to pull information together from multiple tables. This terminology applies to Microsoft Access, Sequel, and possibly other universal database languages. The common, everyday term might change, but is also referred to as ‘lookup’ tables, or controls, lists, and other terminology. Since we’ve ventured into house data and the possibility of looking up or gathering information from another source and combining sources, such as that a person uses their brain, mind, and memory to gather information about how others use their tables, tables in this respect is not limited to just the kitchen. The reason for the terminology in use by Microsoft and the reason for its selection and ability to create selection criteria to ease the use in completing online activities, such as buying groceries, clothing, and other items is unknown and generalized – called fields – lookup fields. This is not comparable to an empty field in nature; an empty field in a database does not have any data stored. In America, there are still a lot of empty fields, just as there are in a new database and a database’s ability to store information is not comparable to the number of fields in America; empty or in use for Farming. The point here is that while open fields are used to create Farms for things that are put on the table in homes, tables are designed first, then fields are added. It is truly unknown if the farm came first, or the table items in homes came first, but we know, without a doubt that the tables must come first in databases and the information can be ‘gathered’ and ‘stored’ from multiple databases as long as the connections are in place and the information requested has a place to store it; which can be in an organized or disorganized structure. A kitchen table and it’s contents is not comparable to the way a database collects and stores information, however, organization is of the utmost importance, as is the way contents that go into a kitchen are; some being very important, sortable by name, size, planned for specific purposes, or just randomly; it is similar with variance in both practices. This means that a database developer, architect, or programmer might be an excellent data planner and organizer of information in tables, but might not be so great in the kitchen. The can utilize their planning skills in both areas, while considering how their brain works in comparison to how they design databases.

A next level of review is to consider how databases work in relation to the brain and body’s utilization of data and nutrients, not just from a cellular biological level, but from the five senses and how products are considered, purchased, organized, strategically managed with purpose and consumed.

One excellent front runner in the food database software business is weight-watchers with a point system for specific foods. The idea of food in a database is a top notch item because with it includes business opportunities for restaurants, chefs, and consumers to manage their daily, weekly, and monthly use or consumption and tastes along with their budgetary choices, while learning and managing their own healthcare in response to specific foods.

If an engineer came a long and said he or she would like to combine the contents of tables from multiple households, to see what goes on between 5-12pm, Monday through Friday, they strategically select specific areas to ensure people are eating. Sensors are developed for refrigerators that help manage electricity, and sensors or other software systems can be developed to manage kitchen activities. Should it start with the kitchen or the grocery list.

When I begin architecting a database, I begin with what I’d like to see at the end; the end result: identifying how I want it to look, what others should see, what is hidden, or unnecessary for the consumer and all of the critical details to help automate tasks and make improvements each time. We do not eat food and accept everything that is put on our plate without evaluation; although it appears some do and some overconsume without even knowing what they are eating, because their activities have become automatic. Having automatic processes running in routines is good, as long as they are healthy choices, but this gives an idea of how the brain works, in relation to an automated system after data and actions are stored.

Just as images prompt a brain to take action, or spark a memory, systems share this same feature to seek information, as long as there is something there designed to make it so.

I can create a query to locate a pink drink with a green and white straw in a database if and only if I have stored that information in a database. The human memory works the same, but the functions and actions might be different depending up what is sought – to buy it at the store or find it in its memory and recall its experience. Currently, the brain and the computer do not have strong memory impressions; meaning that the photo used in this posting does not rest in the human brain, with attached feelings of enjoyment or writing, although it could, if the human decided to prepare the drink, using the straws and later sought to personally recall the memory of both tasks.

The memory does not take on a life of its own unless the mind permits it to; and neither does the computer, unless the image is stored somewhere else. Even in networked systems, brain management and access to human memory is not an option for the person that stored the image in use.