Click the "cached" link; google will tell you if the page contains the phrase or if its only linked from sites that contain the phrase. Nobody cares, though, 'cause "2BEE or nottoobee" is either exactly what you were looking for, or easily ignored based on the title, summary and domain name.
Remember that google is not trying to be pedantic, its trying to be USEFUL. It's taking your search terms or phrase and returning what it thinks are the pages most likely to satisfy your request. In my opinion, google does this brilliantly.
I still don't know why people bring up historical search engines in comparison to google. Most of the complaints boil down to sour grapes: for the record, I too think it sucks that you can't open the window on the airplane.
What makes the stealh bomber stealthy is, in part, its funky shape. The technology employed to keep that funky shape aloft is pretty nifty, and probably useful for keeping other improbable shapes aloft.
The technologies developed for the creation of new and radically different weapons aren't always directly or obviously useful for other purposes. Elements of stealth tech, like bitchin' new fly-by-wire code and super exotic materials science may, in fact, never serve any useful non-military purpose. On the other hand, it may lead directly to the creation of the next generation of airliners, or a new, more efficient wind turbine.
This argument works both ways, of course. Mass production enables the building of cheap cars and cheap tanks. Cheap steel gives us skyscrapers and aircraft carriers. Radar was invented to detect the Luftwaffe, not to re-vector an inbound 747.
The sad fact is that while we persecute war, we will use available technology further the war effort. Any limits are self imposed (or at least self regulated for the larger players -- no UN inspectors in Montana), and probably evaporate altogether when pushed to the very brink.
The question is really this: should the government or individual scientists should pursue new technologies for the express purpose of making war. After all, competition spurs invention; perhaps the best way of making real technological gains is to invent a competition where the players believe that they, or thier families, are on the line.
Slashdot Mirror
"Attention passengers: That whooshing noise you hear is the sound of irony" ;-)
Troll, but...
Click the "cached" link; google will tell you if the page contains the phrase or if its only linked from sites that contain the phrase. Nobody cares, though, 'cause "2BEE or nottoobee" is either exactly what you were looking for, or easily ignored based on the title, summary and domain name.
Remember that google is not trying to be pedantic, its trying to be USEFUL. It's taking your search terms or phrase and returning what it thinks are the pages most likely to satisfy your request. In my opinion, google does this brilliantly.
I still don't know why people bring up historical search engines in comparison to google. Most of the complaints boil down to sour grapes: for the record, I too think it sucks that you can't open the window on the airplane.
What makes the stealh bomber stealthy is, in part, its funky shape. The technology employed to keep that funky shape aloft is pretty nifty, and probably useful for keeping other improbable shapes aloft. The technologies developed for the creation of new and radically different weapons aren't always directly or obviously useful for other purposes. Elements of stealth tech, like bitchin' new fly-by-wire code and super exotic materials science may, in fact, never serve any useful non-military purpose. On the other hand, it may lead directly to the creation of the next generation of airliners, or a new, more efficient wind turbine. This argument works both ways, of course. Mass production enables the building of cheap cars and cheap tanks. Cheap steel gives us skyscrapers and aircraft carriers. Radar was invented to detect the Luftwaffe, not to re-vector an inbound 747. The sad fact is that while we persecute war, we will use available technology further the war effort. Any limits are self imposed (or at least self regulated for the larger players -- no UN inspectors in Montana), and probably evaporate altogether when pushed to the very brink. The question is really this: should the government or individual scientists should pursue new technologies for the express purpose of making war. After all, competition spurs invention; perhaps the best way of making real technological gains is to invent a competition where the players believe that they, or thier families, are on the line.