Steve Jobs on the other hand would have a lair rather than a house. A place where he can constantly rage against the world, formulating ever more devious plans for world domination whilst feeding those employees who disappoint to his pet pirhanas. Think Hank Scorpio, but less polite.
Steve's house is surprisingly...institutional. It always felt like a fancy hospital or something to me. And yeah, Bill Gates really does seem more likable than Jobs, but I think that deep down he's as much of a maniac.
No... conservative justices are more likely to defer to state law since it's not a federal matter. Liberal justices are more likely to claim "interstate commerce" or "general welfare" give them the responsibility to decide what's best. Eg: California medical marijuana.
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
That's because in America we have the FREEDOM to work as much as we want.
In Europe they enjoy that FREEDOM and also much greater FREEDOM: they can choose to work 120 hours a week, or they can choose to work 35. They can work 12 months a year, or they can choose to work 10. America is just about the least FREE place in the developed world, no matter how much our President says the work FREEDOM or how many people choose to write it in all caps.
If annual leave actually increases corporate productivity, then it will be adopted by corporations operating in a capitalist market. It's that simple. What we do have in the USA is the freedom to decide that between employer and employee, as well as the freedom to experiment with whether and how much paid vacation affects productivity. You can't prove that it increases productivity because you don't have any way to experiment.
That's such a ridiculous fallacy. It turns out the world isn't a perfect capitalist market. That would require perfect knowledge, and it turns out that no one has that. People who make these decisions make them for their own benefit, are terrified of experimenting in a way that could upset the things that are already working, and usually abandon any new ideas the moment any remotely potential problem arises.
The GP points at some of the only evidence we do have, which comes from the powerhouse European economy's generous paid leave. Does that prove anything? No. It lets us make some educated guesses, though, and to think that capitalism means that the best solution will always be adopted and become widespread is a great mistake. At best, capitalism in practice is a series of educated guesses that often leads down very unproductive roads.
Now personally I believe this is China's problem to deal with internally and we have our own domestic poor that we're not handling that well, but to try to escape any moral association with taking advantage of disgusting labor conditions and wages by making uninformed generalizations and excuses about how self-limiting they are...
Assuming you're American, like me, I disagree that this isn't our problem. Paying people $50/month to work 15 hour days is making America and its industries poor. This is non-intuitive to a lot of people, probably most people. After all, it seems like our exploiting this cheap labor market should mean that we're coming out as the economic victors. However, the goods being manufactured are being sold back in the U.S. The net effect of the exploitation for us, from a purely monetary standpoint, is that money that was circulating in our country is now circulating in another country, making our country poorer.
Yes, it would be more expensive to have the manufacturing done in America. However, the money spent to pay people in America would increase the spending power of Americans, who are the target market of the majority of the goods manufactured for American companies.
Thus, the astronomically higher expense of paying American workers would make these businesses sustainable (more money comes in to make up for money going out) and their workers' quality of life sustainable. My argument is absolutely proven by integrating over the effect described in my first paragraph. The result is called the trade deficit, and the fact that it is a huge positive number proves that the cost "savings" made by outsourcing to cheaper labor markets must disappear in the long term. Luckily, by then the executives in charge of Nike, McDonald's, etc. will be able to depart with huge severance packages before that happens.
No, they assemble in the US because of the anti-competitive proctectionist tariffs in place on auto imports to the US. It costs them the same as the big three, it's just that they are better and more efficiently run companies. All this bullshit about union costs dragging them down is a smokescreen; Germany is one of the most highly unionized countries in the world with astronomical rates of tax, yet BMW seem to manage ok.
And Mercedes, too. They do well because they make a superior product. Their cars have a certain allure due to name recognition and prestige in some demographics, but I don't think that's the key to their success. The reason they are so successful is that they design and build cars very well. A typical Mercedes requires a tiny fraction of the maintenance of a typical Ford. My 30 year old Mercedes sedan with 400k+ miles has its original breaks, has never had its alignment adjusted or brakes replaced (!) and it drives better than most brand new sports cars. My 10 year old Ford Explorer with ~120k miles had its brakes fall off while driving every 5-10k miles if I don't replace them first, that is until I bought non-Ford brakes, after which they performed much better. It's also on its third transmission and second engine.
Auto unions also tend to produce employees who are complacent at best. They know they are protected by the union and do crappy work as a whole.
Toyota is smart, because keeping unions out also increases their ability to ensure quality exists.
Compare GM cars with Toyota, and the results should be obvious.
Sadly, this is clearly apparent in a comparison of any US automaker to Japanese or European alternatives (though not necessarily to Korean, and certainly to for Indian or Chinese cars). I'd love to buy American cars. I go out of my way to buy electronics actually produced in the US, and that's really hard. Unfortunately, Ford/GM cars (the basis of my experience with American cars) are built from vastly inferior parts and assembled sloppily. Statistics affirm my anecdotal evidence and don't show many any US automaker I can even take a chance on anymore.
Yes, patents are vastly overused as a measure of innovation in corporate research, but not as much in the US as in China or India.
In academic research in the US, this isn't a problem, though it is in China.
US true innovation outstrips that of any other nation right now, but it was a vast difference twenty years ago, while today the derivative of innovation rate vs time for the US is negative while it's positive in Asia and parts of Europe. Wait ten years and then come back and say the same thing and you may be right, Damburger.
'The truth is you can save 3% by keeping tires properly inflated and drilling in the arctic reserve will add 1% to our oil in 20 years'
That's assuming every car in the US is fitted with grossly under/over inflated tires. I would guess most late model cars would realize little or no benefit. This must fall into the 'audacity of hope' category.
Not grossly. Tire underinflated to 28 psi instead of 34 psi on my parents' SUV gives them a 10% reduction in mileage without feeling noticeably sloshy while driving. 3% seems more likely to be accurate for an average over all cars. Apparently 1.3E6 cubic meters of gasoline are used in the US each day and 13E6 cubic meters of oil are imported, and while the refinement process produces a fair amount of quasi-waste or material with very low demand, we can probably get away with assuming that something like 15-20% of the useful oil becomes gasoline (autogas, not including diesel).
I saw the McCain campaign making fun of Obama's tire inflation point and lost the last faith I had that they've got any degree of intelligence. As you point out, very simple, free measures like this would immediately make a bigger impact on oil prices and independence than all of McCain's oil drilling plans put together could make over the next few decades, and they do it for free with no negative effects. The fact that Obama suggested something so sensical also gave me a renewed faith in his ability to think and his willingness to actually solve problems instead of waiving around grandiose plans to get votes.
Yes, McCain is the oldest celebrity I know, but is he ready to lead?
Yeah, but we can afford it now that Obama has reduced American oil consumption by enlightening us all to the fact that we should check the air pressure in the tires of our vehicles for maximum efficiency. Screw Chavez, we don't need his oil anymore! We have Obama and his tire pressure gauges! We are saved!:)
It may sound funny but the truth is he's absolutely right. The whole point wasn't about tire pressure that's pro oil Republicans making fun of "conserving" energy like only hyppies and lefties conserve energy. The truth is you can save 3% by keeping tires properly inflated and drilling in the arctic reserve will add 1% to our oil in 20 years. The fastest easiest way to add more oil to the market is to cut back on usage. Absolute fact. Even the oil companies admit they can't get the new oil to market in less than five to ten years. This is about diverting attention from the real issue and that's the oil companies are trying to gain control of all the oil rights on government land and they want to right to drill anywhere no matter how sensitive. It's manipulative and most of the US is falling for it. Might want to check your facts before you laugh. Since you're on Slashdot I'm guessing you know how to use Google. Do a search and see what the truth is not what the oil company stooges are feeding you.
The similarity with Google Labs is the word "labs" this is about user requirements and suggestions rather than fully fledged products. Its about people suggesting improvements and then those moving into development. This means its at a much earlier part of the product development cycle than Google Labs (which starts with a beta or alpha product).
Saying its like Google Labs is like saying Saks Fifth Avenue is like Madison Avenue because they both have the word Avenue.
1) Google Labs starts with alpha or beta products? Have you notice that they then don't progress beyond alpha or beta?
2) Saks is sort of like Madison, just with a roof.
And we finally have a definitive answer to the question asked at least since the time of the Roman Republic: how can we segregate those with new wealth but no cultural sophistication away from the rest of society without isolating their money from the larger economy?
The apparent answer: soldering contests with expensive drinks.
If all they're trying to do is move the orbit of the asteroid by a fraction or a millimeter per second, wouldn't it be easier to just, you know, harpoon the asteroid and use ion engines to gently pull on it rather than trying to keep a second spacecraft hovering over the non-smoking crater of the first spacecraft? Or, if harpooning isn't viable (cue 'Whalers on the Moon'), just have the spacecraft rest on the asteroid's surface and, using ion engines again, push on the thing.
Can someone more well versed in orbital mechanics and the motion of bodies in space please provide some information as to why these are not viable options.
Orbital mechanics aren't the problem with your suggestion. Consider getting a craft to gently land on an asteroid. That's probably equivalent in difficulty to having a craft maintain its position 150 meters from the asteroid, as suggested in TFA. Already the lander has had about as much complexity as the "hoverer."
Now consider that the object must pull or push the asteroid along a very specific and consistent trajectory to safely move it out of danger. Remember that the asteroid is certainly spinning about two axes, so an object stuck to the surface would not be able to simply face in one direction and push. The craft hanging out 150 meters from the asteroid ignores the spinning and does its job, while the craft on the surface of the asteroid has to either push really hard every once in awhile, when its trajectory happens to be lined up well, or it has to constantly push and angle its exhaust while continuously calculating the correct direction to maneuver the spinning object correctly. Or it could cease the asteroid's rotation, which itself is a difficult problem.
And yes, occasionally R&D does produce a dud like Vista. Well, that's the inherent risk of it. It happens to other companies too.
Most of us agree that Vista is a dud, but I believe it's a dud via marketing, not quality. Vista itself is a fine OS, but the public perception of it is terrible. I think that Apple's Mac vs. PC ads have actually been the dominant factor in establishing this meme, which may make those ads the Apple "product" with the largest direct monetary effect on the software market ever.
That's nice. Science is fun. But since when would we ever find Lithium at the Earth's core? When would Lithium ever come under such pressure? The only Lithium that matters to me is the stuff IN MY VEINS...
RS
Lithium in stars should easily reach and exceed these temperatures and pressures, and a better understanding of it (and other similar elements) under these conditions may help the study of stellar dynamics.
This would get slammed in a court, so why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?
How is it unconstitutional?
I regretfully agree with the posters here saying this is outside reasonable bounds of congressional interest, but at the same time I'm glad they're doing it. Otherwise, airlines would allow cell use despite the majority of passengers being against it. Allowing it is likely to piss off the other customers, but they know from experience that making customers angry doesn't hurt them. At the same time, it may get them a small number of new repeat customers (morons will spend 90% of each flight shouting into their cell phones) if they allow cell phone use and other companies don't.
The subsidized phone cost is really the root of this problem. I wonder if America would just be better off if we moved to a system like in Europe and Asia, where phones cost much more, and the plans are significantly reduced.
At least in Europe, plan length is reduced (and much more commonly prepaid per minute than in the US), not cost, at least for voice.
This is a complete nonsense. Just because some set of pillocks (Paris Hilton, Jordan, everyone on Big Brother) gives up their privacy or Google decides to build a business invading people's privacy doesn't take away my right to it.
I hope the Court gives Google a big punch in the face in the form of an exemplary fine.
Maybe now it should be, "Do no evil unless we can get away with it with legal fees that are lower than the estimated profit we can make from the project related to the evil," which is the same as pretty much any company.
Thanks! It looks like your second link indicates that the maximum word spacing between search terms is only three in Google, which could be useful, and five in Yahoo, which seems substantially more useful. I'll definitely give this a try.
Back when I used LN a lot, about ten years ago, the thing that made it useful to me even when searching through sources that were indexed elsewhere as well were the search terms like A w/5 B, which searches for term A within 5 words of B. That always produced much more relevant results than A and B, and despite all the praise of things like Pagerank, I've never seen a modern internet search engine give nearly as good of results as I was always able to find using this sort of technique.
Is this type of search still limited to LN, or are there ways to do the same sort of thing on Yahoo/Google/etc?
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs on the other hand would have a lair rather than a house. A place where he can constantly rage against the world, formulating ever more devious plans for world domination whilst feeding those employees who disappoint to his pet pirhanas. Think Hank Scorpio, but less polite.
Steve's house is surprisingly...institutional. It always felt like a fancy hospital or something to me. And yeah, Bill Gates really does seem more likable than Jobs, but I think that deep down he's as much of a maniac.
No... conservative justices are more likely to defer to state law since it's not a federal matter. Liberal justices are more likely to claim "interstate commerce" or "general welfare" give them the responsibility to decide what's best. Eg: California medical marijuana.
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
That's because in America we have the FREEDOM to work as much as we want.
In Europe they enjoy that FREEDOM and also much greater FREEDOM: they can choose to work 120 hours a week, or they can choose to work 35. They can work 12 months a year, or they can choose to work 10. America is just about the least FREE place in the developed world, no matter how much our President says the work FREEDOM or how many people choose to write it in all caps.
If annual leave actually increases corporate productivity, then it will be adopted by corporations operating in a capitalist market. It's that simple. What we do have in the USA is the freedom to decide that between employer and employee, as well as the freedom to experiment with whether and how much paid vacation affects productivity. You can't prove that it increases productivity because you don't have any way to experiment.
That's such a ridiculous fallacy. It turns out the world isn't a perfect capitalist market. That would require perfect knowledge, and it turns out that no one has that. People who make these decisions make them for their own benefit, are terrified of experimenting in a way that could upset the things that are already working, and usually abandon any new ideas the moment any remotely potential problem arises.
The GP points at some of the only evidence we do have, which comes from the powerhouse European economy's generous paid leave. Does that prove anything? No. It lets us make some educated guesses, though, and to think that capitalism means that the best solution will always be adopted and become widespread is a great mistake. At best, capitalism in practice is a series of educated guesses that often leads down very unproductive roads.
Now personally I believe this is China's problem to deal with internally and we have our own domestic poor that we're not handling that well, but to try to escape any moral association with taking advantage of disgusting labor conditions and wages by making uninformed generalizations and excuses about how self-limiting they are...
Assuming you're American, like me, I disagree that this isn't our problem. Paying people $50/month to work 15 hour days is making America and its industries poor. This is non-intuitive to a lot of people, probably most people. After all, it seems like our exploiting this cheap labor market should mean that we're coming out as the economic victors. However, the goods being manufactured are being sold back in the U.S. The net effect of the exploitation for us, from a purely monetary standpoint, is that money that was circulating in our country is now circulating in another country, making our country poorer.
Yes, it would be more expensive to have the manufacturing done in America. However, the money spent to pay people in America would increase the spending power of Americans, who are the target market of the majority of the goods manufactured for American companies.
Thus, the astronomically higher expense of paying American workers would make these businesses sustainable (more money comes in to make up for money going out) and their workers' quality of life sustainable. My argument is absolutely proven by integrating over the effect described in my first paragraph. The result is called the trade deficit, and the fact that it is a huge positive number proves that the cost "savings" made by outsourcing to cheaper labor markets must disappear in the long term. Luckily, by then the executives in charge of Nike, McDonald's, etc. will be able to depart with huge severance packages before that happens.
No, they assemble in the US because of the anti-competitive proctectionist tariffs in place on auto imports to the US. It costs them the same as the big three, it's just that they are better and more efficiently run companies. All this bullshit about union costs dragging them down is a smokescreen; Germany is one of the most highly unionized countries in the world with astronomical rates of tax, yet BMW seem to manage ok.
And Mercedes, too. They do well because they make a superior product. Their cars have a certain allure due to name recognition and prestige in some demographics, but I don't think that's the key to their success. The reason they are so successful is that they design and build cars very well. A typical Mercedes requires a tiny fraction of the maintenance of a typical Ford. My 30 year old Mercedes sedan with 400k+ miles has its original breaks, has never had its alignment adjusted or brakes replaced (!) and it drives better than most brand new sports cars. My 10 year old Ford Explorer with ~120k miles had its brakes fall off while driving every 5-10k miles if I don't replace them first, that is until I bought non-Ford brakes, after which they performed much better. It's also on its third transmission and second engine.
Auto unions also tend to produce employees who are complacent at best. They know they are protected by the union and do crappy work as a whole.
Toyota is smart, because keeping unions out also increases their ability to ensure quality exists.
Compare GM cars with Toyota, and the results should be obvious.
Sadly, this is clearly apparent in a comparison of any US automaker to Japanese or European alternatives (though not necessarily to Korean, and certainly to for Indian or Chinese cars). I'd love to buy American cars. I go out of my way to buy electronics actually produced in the US, and that's really hard. Unfortunately, Ford/GM cars (the basis of my experience with American cars) are built from vastly inferior parts and assembled sloppily. Statistics affirm my anecdotal evidence and don't show many any US automaker I can even take a chance on anymore.
He was referring to Soviet women on testosterone therapy, I believe.
From someone who knows more than either of you:
Yes, patents are vastly overused as a measure of innovation in corporate research, but not as much in the US as in China or India.
In academic research in the US, this isn't a problem, though it is in China.
US true innovation outstrips that of any other nation right now, but it was a vast difference twenty years ago, while today the derivative of innovation rate vs time for the US is negative while it's positive in Asia and parts of Europe. Wait ten years and then come back and say the same thing and you may be right, Damburger.
'The truth is you can save 3% by keeping tires properly inflated and drilling in the arctic reserve will add 1% to our oil in 20 years'
That's assuming every car in the US is fitted with grossly under/over inflated tires. I would guess most late model cars would realize little or no benefit. This must fall into the 'audacity of hope' category.
Not grossly. Tire underinflated to 28 psi instead of 34 psi on my parents' SUV gives them a 10% reduction in mileage without feeling noticeably sloshy while driving. 3% seems more likely to be accurate for an average over all cars. Apparently 1.3E6 cubic meters of gasoline are used in the US each day and 13E6 cubic meters of oil are imported, and while the refinement process produces a fair amount of quasi-waste or material with very low demand, we can probably get away with assuming that something like 15-20% of the useful oil becomes gasoline (autogas, not including diesel).
I saw the McCain campaign making fun of Obama's tire inflation point and lost the last faith I had that they've got any degree of intelligence. As you point out, very simple, free measures like this would immediately make a bigger impact on oil prices and independence than all of McCain's oil drilling plans put together could make over the next few decades, and they do it for free with no negative effects. The fact that Obama suggested something so sensical also gave me a renewed faith in his ability to think and his willingness to actually solve problems instead of waiving around grandiose plans to get votes.
Yes, McCain is the oldest celebrity I know, but is he ready to lead?
Yeah, but we can afford it now that Obama has reduced American oil consumption by enlightening us all to the fact that we should check the air pressure in the tires of our vehicles for maximum efficiency. Screw Chavez, we don't need his oil anymore! We have Obama and his tire pressure gauges! We are saved! :)
It may sound funny but the truth is he's absolutely right. The whole point wasn't about tire pressure that's pro oil Republicans making fun of "conserving" energy like only hyppies and lefties conserve energy. The truth is you can save 3% by keeping tires properly inflated and drilling in the arctic reserve will add 1% to our oil in 20 years. The fastest easiest way to add more oil to the market is to cut back on usage. Absolute fact. Even the oil companies admit they can't get the new oil to market in less than five to ten years. This is about diverting attention from the real issue and that's the oil companies are trying to gain control of all the oil rights on government land and they want to right to drill anywhere no matter how sensitive. It's manipulative and most of the US is falling for it. Might want to check your facts before you laugh. Since you're on Slashdot I'm guessing you know how to use Google. Do a search and see what the truth is not what the oil company stooges are feeding you.
The similarity with Google Labs is the word "labs" this is about user requirements and suggestions rather than fully fledged products. Its about people suggesting improvements and then those moving into development. This means its at a much earlier part of the product development cycle than Google Labs (which starts with a beta or alpha product).
Saying its like Google Labs is like saying Saks Fifth Avenue is like Madison Avenue because they both have the word Avenue.
1) Google Labs starts with alpha or beta products? Have you notice that they then don't progress beyond alpha or beta?
2) Saks is sort of like Madison, just with a roof.
Conversely if two physicists walk into a bar, how many patrons have lives?
Answer: The same number as there were before they entered.
In my experience physicists are generally rather cool, worldly people who have well developed personal lives.
And we finally have a definitive answer to the question asked at least since the time of the Roman Republic: how can we segregate those with new wealth but no cultural sophistication away from the rest of society without isolating their money from the larger economy?
The apparent answer: soldering contests with expensive drinks.
If all they're trying to do is move the orbit of the asteroid by a fraction or a millimeter per second, wouldn't it be easier to just, you know, harpoon the asteroid and use ion engines to gently pull on it rather than trying to keep a second spacecraft hovering over the non-smoking crater of the first spacecraft? Or, if harpooning isn't viable (cue 'Whalers on the Moon'), just have the spacecraft rest on the asteroid's surface and, using ion engines again, push on the thing.
Can someone more well versed in orbital mechanics and the motion of bodies in space please provide some information as to why these are not viable options.
Orbital mechanics aren't the problem with your suggestion. Consider getting a craft to gently land on an asteroid. That's probably equivalent in difficulty to having a craft maintain its position 150 meters from the asteroid, as suggested in TFA. Already the lander has had about as much complexity as the "hoverer."
Now consider that the object must pull or push the asteroid along a very specific and consistent trajectory to safely move it out of danger. Remember that the asteroid is certainly spinning about two axes, so an object stuck to the surface would not be able to simply face in one direction and push. The craft hanging out 150 meters from the asteroid ignores the spinning and does its job, while the craft on the surface of the asteroid has to either push really hard every once in awhile, when its trajectory happens to be lined up well, or it has to constantly push and angle its exhaust while continuously calculating the correct direction to maneuver the spinning object correctly. Or it could cease the asteroid's rotation, which itself is a difficult problem.
And yes, occasionally R&D does produce a dud like Vista. Well, that's the inherent risk of it. It happens to other companies too.
Most of us agree that Vista is a dud, but I believe it's a dud via marketing, not quality. Vista itself is a fine OS, but the public perception of it is terrible. I think that Apple's Mac vs. PC ads have actually been the dominant factor in establishing this meme, which may make those ads the Apple "product" with the largest direct monetary effect on the software market ever.
That's nice. Science is fun. But since when would we ever find Lithium at the Earth's core? When would Lithium ever come under such pressure? The only Lithium that matters to me is the stuff IN MY VEINS...
RS
Lithium in stars should easily reach and exceed these temperatures and pressures, and a better understanding of it (and other similar elements) under these conditions may help the study of stellar dynamics.
It is not banned in trains where it is cheap. Why should it be banned in planes where it is prohibitively expensive ?
Cell use is banned on a lot of commuter trains in Europe and the US, but that's done by the train operator, not the government.
This would get slammed in a court, so why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?
How is it unconstitutional?
I regretfully agree with the posters here saying this is outside reasonable bounds of congressional interest, but at the same time I'm glad they're doing it. Otherwise, airlines would allow cell use despite the majority of passengers being against it. Allowing it is likely to piss off the other customers, but they know from experience that making customers angry doesn't hurt them. At the same time, it may get them a small number of new repeat customers (morons will spend 90% of each flight shouting into their cell phones) if they allow cell phone use and other companies don't.
Unless, of course, the student in question really does have herpes
58% of Americans have Herpes (Simplex 1) according to Wikipedia.
Months ago, as mentioned on Wikipedia, the phone home every 10 day behavior was pulled. It still phones home on installation, but that's it.
You can install 3 times before you need to contact EA and ask them to recharge your key for further installations.
The subsidized phone cost is really the root of this problem. I wonder if America would just be better off if we moved to a system like in Europe and Asia, where phones cost much more, and the plans are significantly reduced.
At least in Europe, plan length is reduced (and much more commonly prepaid per minute than in the US), not cost, at least for voice.
This is a complete nonsense. Just because some set of pillocks (Paris Hilton, Jordan, everyone on Big Brother) gives up their privacy or Google decides to build a business invading people's privacy doesn't take away my right to it.
I hope the Court gives Google a big punch in the face in the form of an exemplary fine.
Maybe now it should be, "Do no evil unless we can get away with it with legal fees that are lower than the estimated profit we can make from the project related to the evil," which is the same as pretty much any company.
You can use * between two terms to indicate any word and more * mean more words so it is a kind of manual proximity search.
There is also a google proximity search using the google api and one for yahoo.
Thanks! It looks like your second link indicates that the maximum word spacing between search terms is only three in Google, which could be useful, and five in Yahoo, which seems substantially more useful. I'll definitely give this a try.
Back when I used LN a lot, about ten years ago, the thing that made it useful to me even when searching through sources that were indexed elsewhere as well were the search terms like A w/5 B, which searches for term A within 5 words of B. That always produced much more relevant results than A and B, and despite all the praise of things like Pagerank, I've never seen a modern internet search engine give nearly as good of results as I was always able to find using this sort of technique.
Is this type of search still limited to LN, or are there ways to do the same sort of thing on Yahoo/Google/etc?