However, if the bank watches for some ridiculously large number of transactions to one (or a few) destination accounts then something like this wouldn't work. After all, suddenly seeing 3000 transfers to one account within a few minutes or even hours of each other, especially if the source account has never submitted the transfer before, is suspicious and easy to automatically block for manual verification. The only difficulty would be to manually verify 3000 transactions with each source account owner individually and in person (i.e. not by some quick electronic "click YES to allow this transaction", since that could be automated by the thieves as well).
21 million is a lot of accounts. No one person or group has time to abuse all 21 million accounts in a timely fashion. More likely, one would need to rely on the lackadaisical attitude most people have when it comes to security coupled with a low volume approach to the number of transactions to an external account in order to profit from purchasing all 21 million accounts.
The purchaser would also have to consider just how many accounts would be accessible and for how long. It might not be practical to expect to make significantly more than 12 million euros even with 21 million accounts, since most accounts would probably have low balances or have their passwords, etc., changed rather quickly if the account had a high balance.
So to use this many accounts, one would need to set up a number of new accounts in other banks (a few at a time and more than one so that the number of transactions to a given account would not be too high), then siphon a little bit of money off a few stolen accounts to some of the new accounts, withdraw the money, then close the new accounts almost immediately. The amount withdrawn would need to be random and small enough to escape detection for at least a few days. Anything faster would surely raise suspicion and cause automatic transaction blocking (at least, if the banks have some kind of working fraud prevention), especially since the announcement of the stolen data up for sale. I can also imagine adding a fraud check for a slurry of never-seen-before transactions to new accounts. Wire transfers would be quickest, yet they would also stand out more (since a bunch of new wire transfers from accounts which had never made a wire transfer before would be unusual -- the likely case for most accounts).
The 12 million price tag seems like a number arrived at by the thieves after taking into account the difficulties to be faced in exploiting the 21 million accounts while they are still exploitable. It seems likely that any purchaser would in turn sell them again in smaller blocks (a lot safer that way, relatively speaking).
Wonder if we'll ever find out what eventually happens?
I can see it now...someone hacks the system and substitutes subliminal porn images for the bin Laden pictures. Talk about provoking a physiological reaction...
To say that a low interest loan to Tesla is a bailout for billionaires is to seriously ignore what Tesla is doing. While everyone else is either developing low-speed electric cars (e.g. cars that can't run on the highway and don't have to pass all of the safety regulations) or estimating that their electric hybrid will run AT MOST 40 miles off the battery, Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
Plus, the established auto makers research is primarily still into improving ICEs, which is inherently, horribly inefficient. We've had over a hundred years of research and development into improving the ICE and it's still AT BEST only 25% efficient. We don't need any more ICE development, thank you very much. Considering that the Tesla roadster gets 4 times the fuel efficiency as the best ICE, the money would be applied exactly as it is intended (something that would probably not be the case for GM and company).
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
I have an account with Sirius and don't mind paying for ad free music. I also appreciate the ability to tune in to my same favorite stations wherever I am in the US (I travel a lot for work). However, that's not really what Sirius XM has become. Because of the following reasons, I will be cancelling my subscriptions (I have two) once the year long contract runs out...
First of all, many of the channels are not ad free anymore. If it's not a real ad from another company, it's Sirius advertising their own services. Sorry, an ad is an ad. I won't pay for a service that is suppose to be ad free but isn't.
Second, in the merger of Sirius and XM, they did away with 5 of the 7 channels I routinely listen to. They also did so with no warning. Good grief, Charlie Brown, at least Sirius XM could have come up with some notice about the changes coming (ever heard of email?). Better, they could have conducted a survey of their customers as to what channels were the favorites and dumped the least favorite channels first. Not sure if my channels would have made the cut but at least it would not have been arbitrary (or based on some out-of-touch business manager's decision).
Third, their customer service has always sucked, and their web site has always been less than friendly. At least in my opinion. Maybe it's a monopoly thing. Not a deal killer but definitely a strike against them.
Fourth, with the XM merger, now they want to charge even more money to access all of their stations (specifically, they have a list of "The Best of XM", which includes Oprah, various sports related channels, and some public radio). It's not like they're not already charging an arm and a leg, so to speak.
Lastly, their REAL competition is access to the internet from any location (car, airport, jogging track, home) by any hardware. And with better reception (mostly, anyway). In fact, I would expect broadcast radio to be following satellite radio in short order for the same reason (ubiquitous internet access coupled with DRM free music and the proliferation of podcasts).
So, as a business model, I don't see them remaining viable past the end of 2010. It may be a self fulfilling prophesy but I will not be renewing my subscriptions for the above reasons/rants/predictions.
I never thought I'd see a serious comment with "IRS" and "efficiency" used in the same sentence. I must have accidentally slipped into an alternate universe. Damn hidden wormholes...
I don't know about the rest of the world, but Firefox 3.0.3 sucks on my three XP machines. Version 3.0.2 worked just fine. I let Firefox upgrade itself to 3.0.3 and it immediately started crashing. It crashed so much that I actually had to use IE to download a copy of 3.0.2 to downgrade Firefox on those machines. And Firefox 3.0.3 crashes on my Ubuntu machine far far more often that earlier versions ever did (although I'm still using 3.0.3 on Ubuntu).
Actually, I agree with what you say and of course any honestly numbered software will indeed exhibit the trend you describe. I have also seen software move from version x.0 to x.1 and get worse in the process.
However, the question was version 1 verses a higher version (such as version 6). It was not concerning version 6.0 verses 6.1 or 6.2 for example. Of course, they seem to be considering taking the fudging one step further (instead of version 1.0, use version 6.3), so what you say is still relevant from the perspective of fooling the naive customer. Still not a good way to start off a business relationship.
Personally, I take to opposite view. If I try an application labeled something like version 6.0, for example, and it still has a lot of bugs in it then I'm likely to be a lot more pessimistic about the software. After all, version 6 software ought to have most of the bugs worked out by then. I would think poor quality at version 6 would reflect much more negatively on a company than at version 1.
We've all been conditioned by a source that will go unnamed for now that version 1 software is probably full of bugs, so it's not unexpected. It's also probably true that some people will avoid software simply because it's version 1. Yet, it's the same software whether you call it version 1 or 6, so it has the same bugs in it (e.g. the user who tries the software will experience the same problems, regardless of the version label). For a company to risk losing the good will of the customer on a marketing gimmick seems foolhardy to me. Trust is easy to lose, hard to regain.
Not to defend the claim (the claim is obviously marketing hype) but when they say cloned they mean you can't take a one of their RFID chips and change it to be identical to another one of their chips (to be read by their scanners, etc.). Adding a computer or more circuitry doesn't count because it would not be a clone (even if it generated the same responses).
However, obviously with enough money and resources you could copy one of their chips and turn out another RFID chip that would be identical. It may not even take that much effort or money (I'm sure we'll hear about what it takes soon enough).
If they had claimed that it would be prohibitively expensive or time-consuming to clone one of their chips then maybe I could believe them. But to claim unclonable is in a word unbelievable.
I like the idea of a new player (Google for example) getting into the connection game. Without hashing all of the reasons, however, the entry barrier is quite high, so it is unlikely that there will be any serious contenders from this point forward, except possibly Google. We do have three existing situations that have shakeup potential...
First, the recent 700mhz frequency auction. Even though the incumbents (i.e. Verizon) bought the right to use the newly opened up frequencies, Google did force an "open device" requirement. This means that a third party could possibly buy mega bandwidth from Verizon at a significantly reduced price and then resell it to a typical residential entity without requiring Verizon's permission. A slight possibility.
Second, the rumor that Google has bought/is buying all of the dark fiber up around the US means they will eventually be in the connection business (even if it is as a backbone provider, a more likely possibility than as a residential provider). Then if Google has to pay AT&T, you can bet AT&T will end up paying Google. With a net zero sum game, the idea of making payments doesn't make much sense.
Lastly, the idea of Internet over Power Lines has the potential of providing a third ubiquitous contender. As long as we get electricity from wires, using them for internet access as well as power is a win-win for consumers and the power companies. All we need is for the tech eventually get good enough to compete with copper connections and we'll have that third choice.
When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.
Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.
I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.
As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.
If you agree by contract to allow the other party to change the contract without further consent from you then they are not forcing you to honor the change -- you agreed to the change beforehand.
Whether the clause is legal is another question most probably related to the practical aspects of you as an individual being able to negotiate contract conditions with the much more powerful (legally speaking) service provider. Personally, I have always thought that it would not be considered equal under the eyes of the law, yet you find it in every contract you sign today. So likely it is legal (at least in the US, not sure about Canada).
Interesting. I am unfamiliar with how Lexis would deal with incorrect syntax so I defer to your analysis. I could tell that the "and" was not following the help text on their web site.
No doubt I may be wrong with my analysis, but without parentheses the rules say that the pre/2 is processed before the w/7, so the pre/2 would create data units of #search term# and #last name# before applying the w/7. I would think the chance of having the last name within 2 words of any of the search terms would be much slimmer than having the first name and last name within 7 words of a search term. To make matters worse, the #search term# and #last name# data unit would then have to be within 7 words of the other search terms. It's highly unlikely that "spotted owl ____ Clinton" (for example) would be in the same document with any search term unrelated to spotted owls. "Spotted owl ____ Clinton" within 7 words of "bankrupt!"???
I agree, but the point is that the query brings back "#search term - last name# within 7 of #search term#". Hardly what she intended. What was intended I believe was "#first name - last name# within 7 of #search term#". So, instead of getting "Bill Clinton" close to "spotted owl", she got "spotted owl ____ Clinton" close to "abortion", for example. In fact, now that I think about it, she probably got very few hits at all.
Creates one big collection of records which contain any of the search terms...
bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Finds records where the candidate's last name follows within two words of one of the search terms...
pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
Finds where the last name and the search term fall within 7 words of any of the search terms...
w/7
Example: Would find "sex Clinton" or "sex ____ Clinton" within 7 words of the word bush (probably a lot of hits here if any candidate had the misfortune of being named Clinton).
Lastly, finds any citation that contains the first name of the candidate within the record set defined by the previous steps...
[first name of a candidate] and
Note that including the word "and" here actually disconnected the first name of the candidate from the last name. She should have written: [first name of a candidate] pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
So essentially you would get a list of citations where the last name of the candidate would follow one of the search terms by one or two words and also fell within 7 words of any of the search terms. Sounds like a lot of records.
Connectors operate in the following order of priority:
1. OR
2./n, +n, NOT/n
3./s
4./p
5./seg
6. NOT/seg
7. AND
8. AND NOT
If you use two or more of the same connector, they operate left to right. If the "n" (number) connectors have different numbers, the smallest number is operated on first. You cannot use the/p and/s connectors with a proximity connector (e.g.,/n).
Example: bankrupt!/25 discharg! AND student OR college OR education/5 loan is operated on in the following manner:
* Because OR has the highest priority, it operates first and creates a unit of student OR college OR education!.
*/5, the smaller of the/n connectors, ties together the term loan and the previously formed unit of student OR college OR education!.
*/25 operates next and creates a unit of bankrupt!/25 discharg!.
* AND, with the lowest priority, operates last and links the units formed in the second and third bullets above.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, no problem. And of course I can always edit the information with my AAC information editor. Now, what did you say your email address was again?
Windows 7 builds on the same [Vista] UI
Windows 7 hardware demands match [Vista]
Windows 7 compatibility is virtually identical [to Vista]
and I'd bet "Windows 7 contains the same DRM restrictions [as Vista]"
If Microsoft was honest, they'd just call it Vista SP2.
However, if the bank watches for some ridiculously large number of transactions to one (or a few) destination accounts then something like this wouldn't work. After all, suddenly seeing 3000 transfers to one account within a few minutes or even hours of each other, especially if the source account has never submitted the transfer before, is suspicious and easy to automatically block for manual verification. The only difficulty would be to manually verify 3000 transactions with each source account owner individually and in person (i.e. not by some quick electronic "click YES to allow this transaction", since that could be automated by the thieves as well).
21 million is a lot of accounts. No one person or group has time to abuse all 21 million accounts in a timely fashion. More likely, one would need to rely on the lackadaisical attitude most people have when it comes to security coupled with a low volume approach to the number of transactions to an external account in order to profit from purchasing all 21 million accounts.
The purchaser would also have to consider just how many accounts would be accessible and for how long. It might not be practical to expect to make significantly more than 12 million euros even with 21 million accounts, since most accounts would probably have low balances or have their passwords, etc., changed rather quickly if the account had a high balance.
So to use this many accounts, one would need to set up a number of new accounts in other banks (a few at a time and more than one so that the number of transactions to a given account would not be too high), then siphon a little bit of money off a few stolen accounts to some of the new accounts, withdraw the money, then close the new accounts almost immediately. The amount withdrawn would need to be random and small enough to escape detection for at least a few days. Anything faster would surely raise suspicion and cause automatic transaction blocking (at least, if the banks have some kind of working fraud prevention), especially since the announcement of the stolen data up for sale. I can also imagine adding a fraud check for a slurry of never-seen-before transactions to new accounts. Wire transfers would be quickest, yet they would also stand out more (since a bunch of new wire transfers from accounts which had never made a wire transfer before would be unusual -- the likely case for most accounts).
The 12 million price tag seems like a number arrived at by the thieves after taking into account the difficulties to be faced in exploiting the 21 million accounts while they are still exploitable. It seems likely that any purchaser would in turn sell them again in smaller blocks (a lot safer that way, relatively speaking).
Wonder if we'll ever find out what eventually happens?
I can see it now...someone hacks the system and substitutes subliminal porn images for the bin Laden pictures. Talk about provoking a physiological reaction...
To say that a low interest loan to Tesla is a bailout for billionaires is to seriously ignore what Tesla is doing. While everyone else is either developing low-speed electric cars (e.g. cars that can't run on the highway and don't have to pass all of the safety regulations) or estimating that their electric hybrid will run AT MOST 40 miles off the battery, Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
Plus, the established auto makers research is primarily still into improving ICEs, which is inherently, horribly inefficient. We've had over a hundred years of research and development into improving the ICE and it's still AT BEST only 25% efficient. We don't need any more ICE development, thank you very much. Considering that the Tesla roadster gets 4 times the fuel efficiency as the best ICE, the money would be applied exactly as it is intended (something that would probably not be the case for GM and company).
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
I have an account with Sirius and don't mind paying for ad free music. I also appreciate the ability to tune in to my same favorite stations wherever I am in the US (I travel a lot for work). However, that's not really what Sirius XM has become. Because of the following reasons, I will be cancelling my subscriptions (I have two) once the year long contract runs out...
First of all, many of the channels are not ad free anymore. If it's not a real ad from another company, it's Sirius advertising their own services. Sorry, an ad is an ad. I won't pay for a service that is suppose to be ad free but isn't.
Second, in the merger of Sirius and XM, they did away with 5 of the 7 channels I routinely listen to. They also did so with no warning. Good grief, Charlie Brown, at least Sirius XM could have come up with some notice about the changes coming (ever heard of email?). Better, they could have conducted a survey of their customers as to what channels were the favorites and dumped the least favorite channels first. Not sure if my channels would have made the cut but at least it would not have been arbitrary (or based on some out-of-touch business manager's decision).
Third, their customer service has always sucked, and their web site has always been less than friendly. At least in my opinion. Maybe it's a monopoly thing. Not a deal killer but definitely a strike against them.
Fourth, with the XM merger, now they want to charge even more money to access all of their stations (specifically, they have a list of "The Best of XM", which includes Oprah, various sports related channels, and some public radio). It's not like they're not already charging an arm and a leg, so to speak.
Lastly, their REAL competition is access to the internet from any location (car, airport, jogging track, home) by any hardware. And with better reception (mostly, anyway). In fact, I would expect broadcast radio to be following satellite radio in short order for the same reason (ubiquitous internet access coupled with DRM free music and the proliferation of podcasts).
So, as a business model, I don't see them remaining viable past the end of 2010. It may be a self fulfilling prophesy but I will not be renewing my subscriptions for the above reasons/rants/predictions.
I never thought I'd see a serious comment with "IRS" and "efficiency" used in the same sentence. I must have accidentally slipped into an alternate universe. Damn hidden wormholes...
I don't know about the rest of the world, but Firefox 3.0.3 sucks on my three XP machines. Version 3.0.2 worked just fine. I let Firefox upgrade itself to 3.0.3 and it immediately started crashing. It crashed so much that I actually had to use IE to download a copy of 3.0.2 to downgrade Firefox on those machines. And Firefox 3.0.3 crashes on my Ubuntu machine far far more often that earlier versions ever did (although I'm still using 3.0.3 on Ubuntu).
Actually, I agree with what you say and of course any honestly numbered software will indeed exhibit the trend you describe. I have also seen software move from version x.0 to x.1 and get worse in the process.
However, the question was version 1 verses a higher version (such as version 6). It was not concerning version 6.0 verses 6.1 or 6.2 for example. Of course, they seem to be considering taking the fudging one step further (instead of version 1.0, use version 6.3), so what you say is still relevant from the perspective of fooling the naive customer. Still not a good way to start off a business relationship.
Personally, I take to opposite view. If I try an application labeled something like version 6.0, for example, and it still has a lot of bugs in it then I'm likely to be a lot more pessimistic about the software. After all, version 6 software ought to have most of the bugs worked out by then. I would think poor quality at version 6 would reflect much more negatively on a company than at version 1.
We've all been conditioned by a source that will go unnamed for now that version 1 software is probably full of bugs, so it's not unexpected. It's also probably true that some people will avoid software simply because it's version 1. Yet, it's the same software whether you call it version 1 or 6, so it has the same bugs in it (e.g. the user who tries the software will experience the same problems, regardless of the version label). For a company to risk losing the good will of the customer on a marketing gimmick seems foolhardy to me. Trust is easy to lose, hard to regain.
Hmmm...maybe it's the drain for an Omnipotent's toilet...and he just flushed...
Are we sure Apple's marketing group isn't producing these ads?
Not to defend the claim (the claim is obviously marketing hype) but when they say cloned they mean you can't take a one of their RFID chips and change it to be identical to another one of their chips (to be read by their scanners, etc.). Adding a computer or more circuitry doesn't count because it would not be a clone (even if it generated the same responses).
However, obviously with enough money and resources you could copy one of their chips and turn out another RFID chip that would be identical. It may not even take that much effort or money (I'm sure we'll hear about what it takes soon enough).
If they had claimed that it would be prohibitively expensive or time-consuming to clone one of their chips then maybe I could believe them. But to claim unclonable is in a word unbelievable.
I like the idea of a new player (Google for example) getting into the connection game. Without hashing all of the reasons, however, the entry barrier is quite high, so it is unlikely that there will be any serious contenders from this point forward, except possibly Google. We do have three existing situations that have shakeup potential...
First, the recent 700mhz frequency auction. Even though the incumbents (i.e. Verizon) bought the right to use the newly opened up frequencies, Google did force an "open device" requirement. This means that a third party could possibly buy mega bandwidth from Verizon at a significantly reduced price and then resell it to a typical residential entity without requiring Verizon's permission. A slight possibility.
Second, the rumor that Google has bought/is buying all of the dark fiber up around the US means they will eventually be in the connection business (even if it is as a backbone provider, a more likely possibility than as a residential provider). Then if Google has to pay AT&T, you can bet AT&T will end up paying Google. With a net zero sum game, the idea of making payments doesn't make much sense.
Lastly, the idea of Internet over Power Lines has the potential of providing a third ubiquitous contender. As long as we get electricity from wires, using them for internet access as well as power is a win-win for consumers and the power companies. All we need is for the tech eventually get good enough to compete with copper connections and we'll have that third choice.
Life is funny...I know lot's of smart asses that are also dumb asses. Go figure.
...is a fundamental conflict of interest.
When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.
Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.
I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.
As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.
If you agree by contract to allow the other party to change the contract without further consent from you then they are not forcing you to honor the change -- you agreed to the change beforehand.
Whether the clause is legal is another question most probably related to the practical aspects of you as an individual being able to negotiate contract conditions with the much more powerful (legally speaking) service provider. Personally, I have always thought that it would not be considered equal under the eyes of the law, yet you find it in every contract you sign today. So likely it is legal (at least in the US, not sure about Canada).
Interesting. I am unfamiliar with how Lexis would deal with incorrect syntax so I defer to your analysis. I could tell that the "and" was not following the help text on their web site.
Thanks for your patience.
No doubt I may be wrong with my analysis, but without parentheses the rules say that the pre/2 is processed before the w/7, so the pre/2 would create data units of #search term# and #last name# before applying the w/7. I would think the chance of having the last name within 2 words of any of the search terms would be much slimmer than having the first name and last name within 7 words of a search term. To make matters worse, the #search term# and #last name# data unit would then have to be within 7 words of the other search terms. It's highly unlikely that "spotted owl ____ Clinton" (for example) would be in the same document with any search term unrelated to spotted owls. "Spotted owl ____ Clinton" within 7 words of "bankrupt!"???
I would love to see your analysis...
I agree, but the point is that the query brings back "#search term - last name# within 7 of #search term#". Hardly what she intended. What was intended I believe was "#first name - last name# within 7 of #search term#". So, instead of getting "Bill Clinton" close to "spotted owl", she got "spotted owl ____ Clinton" close to "abortion", for example. In fact, now that I think about it, she probably got very few hits at all.
OK, so we would get this:
Creates one big collection of records which contain any of the search terms...
bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Finds records where the candidate's last name follows within two words of one of the search terms...
pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
Finds where the last name and the search term fall within 7 words of any of the search terms...
w/7
Example: Would find "sex Clinton" or "sex ____ Clinton" within 7 words of the word bush (probably a lot of hits here if any candidate had the misfortune of being named Clinton).
Lastly, finds any citation that contains the first name of the candidate within the record set defined by the previous steps...
[first name of a candidate] and
Note that including the word "and" here actually disconnected the first name of the candidate from the last name. She should have written:
[first name of a candidate] pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
So essentially you would get a list of citations where the last name of the candidate would follow one of the search terms by one or two words and also fell within 7 words of any of the search terms. Sounds like a lot of records.
Someone check me on this if you would...
I found this here:
/n, +n, NOT /n /s /p /seg /seg
/p and /s connectors with a proximity connector (e.g., /n).
/25 discharg! AND student OR college OR education /5 loan is operated on in the following manner:
/5, the smaller of the /n connectors, ties together the term loan and the previously formed unit of student OR college OR education!. /25 operates next and creates a unit of bankrupt! /25 discharg!.
Connector Order and Priority
Connectors operate in the following order of priority:
1. OR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. NOT
7. AND
8. AND NOT
If you use two or more of the same connector, they operate left to right. If the "n" (number) connectors have different numbers, the smallest number is operated on first. You cannot use the
Example: bankrupt!
* Because OR has the highest priority, it operates first and creates a unit of student OR college OR education!.
*
*
* AND, with the lowest priority, operates last and links the units formed in the second and third bullets above.
If I read this query right, this thing would practically dump the entire LexisNexis database (at least, all of the interesting cases).
However, need to correct a very important typo...you have misspelled the www.groklaw.net web address (you have growklaw at least once in the paper).