<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_07_0233230</id>
	<title>Microsoft Files For 3 Parallel Processing Patents</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244365800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"Microsoft may have been a <a href="http://www.bluebytesoftware.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,97993858-1c91-4d90-9826-14987154c303.aspx">Johnny-come-lately</a> when it comes to parallel programming, but that's not stopping the software giant from trying to patent it. This week, the USPTO revealed that Microsoft has three additional parallel-processing patents pending &mdash; 1. <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220090144346\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20090144346&amp;RS=DN/20090144346">Partitioning and Repartitioning for Data Parallel Operations</a>, 2. <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220090144232\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20090144232&amp;RS=DN/20090144232">Data Parallel Searching</a>, and 3. <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220090144228\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20090144228&amp;RS=DN/20090144228">Data Parallel Production and Consumption</a>. Informing the USPTO that 'Software programs have been written to run sequentially since the beginning days of software development,' Microsoft adds there's been a '[recent] shift away from sequential execution toward parallel execution.' Before they grant the patents, let's hope the USPTO <a href="http://www.teradata.com/t/history/">gets a second opinion on the novelty</a> of Microsoft's parallel-processing patent claims."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Microsoft may have been a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to parallel programming , but that 's not stopping the software giant from trying to patent it .
This week , the USPTO revealed that Microsoft has three additional parallel-processing patents pending    1 .
Partitioning and Repartitioning for Data Parallel Operations , 2 .
Data Parallel Searching , and 3 .
Data Parallel Production and Consumption .
Informing the USPTO that 'Software programs have been written to run sequentially since the beginning days of software development, ' Microsoft adds there 's been a ' [ recent ] shift away from sequential execution toward parallel execution .
' Before they grant the patents , let 's hope the USPTO gets a second opinion on the novelty of Microsoft 's parallel-processing patent claims .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Microsoft may have been a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to parallel programming, but that's not stopping the software giant from trying to patent it.
This week, the USPTO revealed that Microsoft has three additional parallel-processing patents pending — 1.
Partitioning and Repartitioning for Data Parallel Operations, 2.
Data Parallel Searching, and 3.
Data Parallel Production and Consumption.
Informing the USPTO that 'Software programs have been written to run sequentially since the beginning days of software development,' Microsoft adds there's been a '[recent] shift away from sequential execution toward parallel execution.
' Before they grant the patents, let's hope the USPTO gets a second opinion on the novelty of Microsoft's parallel-processing patent claims.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255</id>
	<title>Can you spell "MapReduce" Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange I was just researching MapReduce online when this slashdot posting appeared.</p><p><a href="http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ralf/MapReduce/paper.pdf" title="cs.vu.nl">http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ralf/MapReduce/paper.pdf</a> [cs.vu.nl]<br><a href="http://cnx.org/content/m20644/latest/" title="cnx.org">http://cnx.org/content/m20644/latest/</a> [cnx.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_File\_System" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_File\_System</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.</p><p>Patents, a strange concept anyhow to have a government imposed monopoly. Revoke your governments power to have patents. That should take care of the pesky problem. Prior art helps too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange I was just researching MapReduce online when this slashdot posting appeared.http : //www.cs.vu.nl/ ~ ralf/MapReduce/paper.pdf [ cs.vu.nl ] http : //cnx.org/content/m20644/latest/ [ cnx.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google \ _File \ _System [ wikipedia.org ] Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.Patents , a strange concept anyhow to have a government imposed monopoly .
Revoke your governments power to have patents .
That should take care of the pesky problem .
Prior art helps too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange I was just researching MapReduce online when this slashdot posting appeared.http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ralf/MapReduce/paper.pdf [cs.vu.nl]http://cnx.org/content/m20644/latest/ [cnx.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_File\_System [wikipedia.org]Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.Patents, a strange concept anyhow to have a government imposed monopoly.
Revoke your governments power to have patents.
That should take care of the pesky problem.
Prior art helps too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241943</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a patent for breathing.  Or was, but I suppose Iron Lungs and Ventilators have been around long enough that those patents are expired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a patent for breathing .
Or was , but I suppose Iron Lungs and Ventilators have been around long enough that those patents are expired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a patent for breathing.
Or was, but I suppose Iron Lungs and Ventilators have been around long enough that those patents are expired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243019</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244403780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules. They seem to be happy with things the way they are. I won't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid, just go and google it.</p><p>The same applies to IBM and other big vendors, possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell (but go and figure out how these two ended up...).</p></div><p>Even if these big companies don't like the current system, it's not clear exactly how you'd improve it -- or how those improvements would affect their ability to make a profit. Playing within the current system is the safe option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules .
They seem to be happy with things the way they are .
I wo n't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid , just go and google it.The same applies to IBM and other big vendors , possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell ( but go and figure out how these two ended up... ) .Even if these big companies do n't like the current system , it 's not clear exactly how you 'd improve it -- or how those improvements would affect their ability to make a profit .
Playing within the current system is the safe option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules.
They seem to be happy with things the way they are.
I won't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid, just go and google it.The same applies to IBM and other big vendors, possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell (but go and figure out how these two ended up...).Even if these big companies don't like the current system, it's not clear exactly how you'd improve it -- or how those improvements would affect their ability to make a profit.
Playing within the current system is the safe option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28251689</id>
	<title>Re:Can you spell "MapReduce" Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Mendokusei</author>
	<datestamp>1244479320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.</p></div><p>I came for the obligatory insult to patent examiners in the comments of a story about applications that haven't even been examined yet. I did not leave disappointed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.I came for the obligatory insult to patent examiners in the comments of a story about applications that have n't even been examined yet .
I did not leave disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent examiners need to get their heads examined.I came for the obligatory insult to patent examiners in the comments of a story about applications that haven't even been examined yet.
I did not leave disappointed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</id>
	<title>pffff</title>
	<author>Bafoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244370360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Johnny-come-lately?
Compared to what others have done in the fields of parallel processing in terms of programming...they are light years ahead.
Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.
then throw in some data.
then tell me who the "Johnny-come-lately" is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Johnny-come-lately ?
Compared to what others have done in the fields of parallel processing in terms of programming...they are light years ahead .
Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it .
then throw in some data .
then tell me who the " Johnny-come-lately " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Johnny-come-lately?
Compared to what others have done in the fields of parallel processing in terms of programming...they are light years ahead.
Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.
then throw in some data.
then tell me who the "Johnny-come-lately" is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242423</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Mycroft\_514</author>
	<datestamp>1244399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database, and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk. Having two threads isn't going to speed anything up there, and might actually cause the disk to thrash.</p><p>Hm, you obivously never heard of either Teradata or DB/2?  I worked as a Teradata DBA as early as 1988<br>(version 2.0 of the Teradata Operating System).  DB/2 has had automatic parallel processing of<br>partitioned tablespaces at least since version 7.  That's just two DBMSes I can name.</p><p>Obviously, there is plenty of prior art out there, and these patents should be rejsected immediately, and Micrsoft is not going to fight<br>IBM over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The first patent looks kind of interesting , inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database , and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel , but I 'm not sure it would be any more efficient , because there is only one disk .
Having two threads is n't going to speed anything up there , and might actually cause the disk to thrash.Hm , you obivously never heard of either Teradata or DB/2 ?
I worked as a Teradata DBA as early as 1988 ( version 2.0 of the Teradata Operating System ) .
DB/2 has had automatic parallel processing ofpartitioned tablespaces at least since version 7 .
That 's just two DBMSes I can name.Obviously , there is plenty of prior art out there , and these patents should be rejsected immediately , and Micrsoft is not going to fightIBM over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database, and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.
Having two threads isn't going to speed anything up there, and might actually cause the disk to thrash.Hm, you obivously never heard of either Teradata or DB/2?
I worked as a Teradata DBA as early as 1988(version 2.0 of the Teradata Operating System).
DB/2 has had automatic parallel processing ofpartitioned tablespaces at least since version 7.
That's just two DBMSes I can name.Obviously, there is plenty of prior art out there, and these patents should be rejsected immediately, and Micrsoft is not going to fightIBM over this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240113</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Hillview</author>
	<datestamp>1244371800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be wrong, but I believe the article was referring to the fact that parallel processing has been around since before Microsoft existed.  Of course, <a href="http://www.teradata.com/t/history/" title="teradata.com" rel="nofollow">Following the Links</a> [teradata.com] and perhaps a little <a href="http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Parallel.html" title="vt.edu" rel="nofollow"> research of your own</a> [vt.edu] will provide further insight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be wrong , but I believe the article was referring to the fact that parallel processing has been around since before Microsoft existed .
Of course , Following the Links [ teradata.com ] and perhaps a little research of your own [ vt.edu ] will provide further insight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be wrong, but I believe the article was referring to the fact that parallel processing has been around since before Microsoft existed.
Of course, Following the Links [teradata.com] and perhaps a little  research of your own [vt.edu] will provide further insight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240081</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1244371140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up. MS definelty jumped on parallel processing early</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
MS definelty jumped on parallel processing early</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
MS definelty jumped on parallel processing early</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242801</id>
	<title>Maybe Oracle should implement this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, wait, they did, like a decade ago.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>There is an O'Reilly book from 9 years ago devoted to parallelism in Oracle, which might be a little hard to locate, since it is oddly titled <a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/oraclepp/chapter/ch01.html" title="oreilly.com" rel="nofollow">Oracle Parallel Processing (ISBN 1-56592-701-X)</a> [oreilly.com] <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>Of course, since Microsoft would never consider patenting something that wasn't new and novel, that Oracle can't be considered prior art... I can't help but to wonder if, after their patents are awarded, Microsoft might discover that Oracle has been using these newly-patented technologies for more than a decade without paying license fees.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>After all, it should be impossible for a DBMS to benefit from a multiprocessor machine without infringing.<br>
&nbsp; </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , wait , they did , like a decade ago .
  There is an O'Reilly book from 9 years ago devoted to parallelism in Oracle , which might be a little hard to locate , since it is oddly titled Oracle Parallel Processing ( ISBN 1-56592-701-X ) [ oreilly.com ]   Of course , since Microsoft would never consider patenting something that was n't new and novel , that Oracle ca n't be considered prior art... I ca n't help but to wonder if , after their patents are awarded , Microsoft might discover that Oracle has been using these newly-patented technologies for more than a decade without paying license fees .
  After all , it should be impossible for a DBMS to benefit from a multiprocessor machine without infringing .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, wait, they did, like a decade ago.
  There is an O'Reilly book from 9 years ago devoted to parallelism in Oracle, which might be a little hard to locate, since it is oddly titled Oracle Parallel Processing (ISBN 1-56592-701-X) [oreilly.com] 
  Of course, since Microsoft would never consider patenting something that wasn't new and novel, that Oracle can't be considered prior art... I can't help but to wonder if, after their patents are awarded, Microsoft might discover that Oracle has been using these newly-patented technologies for more than a decade without paying license fees.
  After all, it should be impossible for a DBMS to benefit from a multiprocessor machine without infringing.
  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240935</id>
	<title>I for one hope Microsoft gets the patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244385660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is the most innovative company of all time. Their products are superior to all others, otherwise why would so many people use them? I mean, vista is awesome, it came right at a great time and really expanded the capability of computers. I cant wait for Microsoft to release a new operating system every 2 years, its awesome! I also really like how they are going to limit the number of processes on certain systems. Its SO confusing to determine how many processes my hardware can support. I hope Microsoft gets the patents, as they have been an outstanding corporate innovator for the last 12 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the most innovative company of all time .
Their products are superior to all others , otherwise why would so many people use them ?
I mean , vista is awesome , it came right at a great time and really expanded the capability of computers .
I cant wait for Microsoft to release a new operating system every 2 years , its awesome !
I also really like how they are going to limit the number of processes on certain systems .
Its SO confusing to determine how many processes my hardware can support .
I hope Microsoft gets the patents , as they have been an outstanding corporate innovator for the last 12 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the most innovative company of all time.
Their products are superior to all others, otherwise why would so many people use them?
I mean, vista is awesome, it came right at a great time and really expanded the capability of computers.
I cant wait for Microsoft to release a new operating system every 2 years, its awesome!
I also really like how they are going to limit the number of processes on certain systems.
Its SO confusing to determine how many processes my hardware can support.
I hope Microsoft gets the patents, as they have been an outstanding corporate innovator for the last 12 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240891</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Teckla</author>
	<datestamp>1244385120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>kicking of the processes</p></div><p>Listen up, mister! We don't take kindly to process abuse around here!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kicking of the processesListen up , mister !
We do n't take kindly to process abuse around here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kicking of the processesListen up, mister!
We don't take kindly to process abuse around here!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241311</id>
	<title>Re:Just what the world needs...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244389980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is also infringing on your sig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is also infringing on your sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is also infringing on your sig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241211</id>
	<title>Re:Just what the world needs...</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1244388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']"</p><p>If it could use different cores and run automatically in parallel, we could sink some of these patents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ b.belong ( 'us ' ) for b in bases if b.owner ( ) = = 'you ' ] " If it could use different cores and run automatically in parallel , we could sink some of these patents ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']"If it could use different cores and run automatically in parallel, we could sink some of these patents ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231</id>
	<title>Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule 1: If I don't patent it, someone else will -- no matter how obvious or trivial.<br>Rule 2: If someone else patents it -- even if invalid -- and I try to use it, it's off to court for years and years and lots of money.</p><p>The game: The one with the most patents wins.</p><p>If you don't like the rules, you have two choices.<br>Choice 1: Don't play the game.<br>Choice 2: Get the rules changed.</p><p>Criticizing Microsoft or anyone else for playing the game by the rules is just whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule 1 : If I do n't patent it , someone else will -- no matter how obvious or trivial.Rule 2 : If someone else patents it -- even if invalid -- and I try to use it , it 's off to court for years and years and lots of money.The game : The one with the most patents wins.If you do n't like the rules , you have two choices.Choice 1 : Do n't play the game.Choice 2 : Get the rules changed.Criticizing Microsoft or anyone else for playing the game by the rules is just whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule 1: If I don't patent it, someone else will -- no matter how obvious or trivial.Rule 2: If someone else patents it -- even if invalid -- and I try to use it, it's off to court for years and years and lots of money.The game: The one with the most patents wins.If you don't like the rules, you have two choices.Choice 1: Don't play the game.Choice 2: Get the rules changed.Criticizing Microsoft or anyone else for playing the game by the rules is just whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240827</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244383980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick Google search finds what looks suspiciously like prior art for their first patent:</p><p>H. P. Katseff, "Using Data Partitioning to Implement a Parallel Assembler," Proceedings of the ACM/SIGPLAN PPEALS 1988, New Haven, July 1988, pp 66-76.</p><p>http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=62123</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick Google search finds what looks suspiciously like prior art for their first patent : H. P. Katseff , " Using Data Partitioning to Implement a Parallel Assembler , " Proceedings of the ACM/SIGPLAN PPEALS 1988 , New Haven , July 1988 , pp 66-76.http : //portal.acm.org/citation.cfm ? id = 62123</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick Google search finds what looks suspiciously like prior art for their first patent:H. P. Katseff, "Using Data Partitioning to Implement a Parallel Assembler," Proceedings of the ACM/SIGPLAN PPEALS 1988, New Haven, July 1988, pp 66-76.http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=62123</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240693</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you'd just rather cowardly keep your mouth shut and silently accept it?</p><p>I'm sorry, but people like you are the reason the system is so fucked up to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 'd just rather cowardly keep your mouth shut and silently accept it ? I 'm sorry , but people like you are the reason the system is so fucked up to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you'd just rather cowardly keep your mouth shut and silently accept it?I'm sorry, but people like you are the reason the system is so fucked up to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240967</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1244386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pay is fairly competitive (as government jobs go, at least) with industry jobs.  Starting salaries are close to average, ranging from $50k to $70k, depending on your incoming level of experience/education, although you do have to live in the DC-VA-MD area, which can be fairly expensive (though not as bad as Manhattan or Silicon Valley, for instance).  If you stay long enough, you can hit the federal salary cap (about $150k).  It's also tough to beat government bennies.  The question is whether you like the work and can deal with the production environment.</p><p>Examiners are responsible to get a certain number of "counts" per pay period.  You get a count by sending out a first Office action for an application (on the merits - there are certain Office actions which don't count for this).  You also get a count when an application is disposed of (abandoned, allowed, upon writing an Examiner's Answer when the applicant is appealing your decision, or upon the applicant filing a Request for Continued Examination).</p><p>The problem is that there are Office actions that don't earn you counts, but that still require a decent amount of work.  Your second Office action on a case doesn't earn you a count, and if you screwed up the first one, you may not be able to make the second one "final" (after final, if you did your Office action correctly, the applicant is only able to appeal or file an RCE, so you usually get a count after a final action within 3 to 6 months).</p><p>What this amounts to is a fairly grueling workplace starting at about six months (once your "basic" training is mostly complete) to about 1.5 to 2 years, because in the interim, you're doing a lot of Office actions that don't earn you any counts yet.  Once your pipeline gets full, i.e., all those extra actions you sent out are finally netting you some disposal counts, the workload tapers off, and if you're good at the job, you'll pretty much sail through and get your promotions and bonuses easily at that point.  But in the meantime, you'll probably be working a lot of unpaid overtime to make production.</p><p>The production system is why the turnover at the USPTO is so high.  Most examiners who leave cite it as the biggest factor in their decision to quit.  Not coincidentally, most examiners leave within their first two years.  If it were fun like programming games or something, then people would probably grin and bear it, but it's kind of not.  You'll learn a lot about the technology (or "art") you're examining in, but most of this learning will come from searching the prior art rather than from reading the applications you're examining, because attorneys (most of whom have a basic science or engineering background) write most of these things (and frequently, they are mediocre translations from Japanese or Korean), and the legal aspects make the obfuscations practiced by the attorneys into an artform.</p><p>Still, some people like it, and they stay at the USPTO until they retire.  I haven't figured out why yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pay is fairly competitive ( as government jobs go , at least ) with industry jobs .
Starting salaries are close to average , ranging from $ 50k to $ 70k , depending on your incoming level of experience/education , although you do have to live in the DC-VA-MD area , which can be fairly expensive ( though not as bad as Manhattan or Silicon Valley , for instance ) .
If you stay long enough , you can hit the federal salary cap ( about $ 150k ) .
It 's also tough to beat government bennies .
The question is whether you like the work and can deal with the production environment.Examiners are responsible to get a certain number of " counts " per pay period .
You get a count by sending out a first Office action for an application ( on the merits - there are certain Office actions which do n't count for this ) .
You also get a count when an application is disposed of ( abandoned , allowed , upon writing an Examiner 's Answer when the applicant is appealing your decision , or upon the applicant filing a Request for Continued Examination ) .The problem is that there are Office actions that do n't earn you counts , but that still require a decent amount of work .
Your second Office action on a case does n't earn you a count , and if you screwed up the first one , you may not be able to make the second one " final " ( after final , if you did your Office action correctly , the applicant is only able to appeal or file an RCE , so you usually get a count after a final action within 3 to 6 months ) .What this amounts to is a fairly grueling workplace starting at about six months ( once your " basic " training is mostly complete ) to about 1.5 to 2 years , because in the interim , you 're doing a lot of Office actions that do n't earn you any counts yet .
Once your pipeline gets full , i.e. , all those extra actions you sent out are finally netting you some disposal counts , the workload tapers off , and if you 're good at the job , you 'll pretty much sail through and get your promotions and bonuses easily at that point .
But in the meantime , you 'll probably be working a lot of unpaid overtime to make production.The production system is why the turnover at the USPTO is so high .
Most examiners who leave cite it as the biggest factor in their decision to quit .
Not coincidentally , most examiners leave within their first two years .
If it were fun like programming games or something , then people would probably grin and bear it , but it 's kind of not .
You 'll learn a lot about the technology ( or " art " ) you 're examining in , but most of this learning will come from searching the prior art rather than from reading the applications you 're examining , because attorneys ( most of whom have a basic science or engineering background ) write most of these things ( and frequently , they are mediocre translations from Japanese or Korean ) , and the legal aspects make the obfuscations practiced by the attorneys into an artform.Still , some people like it , and they stay at the USPTO until they retire .
I have n't figured out why yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pay is fairly competitive (as government jobs go, at least) with industry jobs.
Starting salaries are close to average, ranging from $50k to $70k, depending on your incoming level of experience/education, although you do have to live in the DC-VA-MD area, which can be fairly expensive (though not as bad as Manhattan or Silicon Valley, for instance).
If you stay long enough, you can hit the federal salary cap (about $150k).
It's also tough to beat government bennies.
The question is whether you like the work and can deal with the production environment.Examiners are responsible to get a certain number of "counts" per pay period.
You get a count by sending out a first Office action for an application (on the merits - there are certain Office actions which don't count for this).
You also get a count when an application is disposed of (abandoned, allowed, upon writing an Examiner's Answer when the applicant is appealing your decision, or upon the applicant filing a Request for Continued Examination).The problem is that there are Office actions that don't earn you counts, but that still require a decent amount of work.
Your second Office action on a case doesn't earn you a count, and if you screwed up the first one, you may not be able to make the second one "final" (after final, if you did your Office action correctly, the applicant is only able to appeal or file an RCE, so you usually get a count after a final action within 3 to 6 months).What this amounts to is a fairly grueling workplace starting at about six months (once your "basic" training is mostly complete) to about 1.5 to 2 years, because in the interim, you're doing a lot of Office actions that don't earn you any counts yet.
Once your pipeline gets full, i.e., all those extra actions you sent out are finally netting you some disposal counts, the workload tapers off, and if you're good at the job, you'll pretty much sail through and get your promotions and bonuses easily at that point.
But in the meantime, you'll probably be working a lot of unpaid overtime to make production.The production system is why the turnover at the USPTO is so high.
Most examiners who leave cite it as the biggest factor in their decision to quit.
Not coincidentally, most examiners leave within their first two years.
If it were fun like programming games or something, then people would probably grin and bear it, but it's kind of not.
You'll learn a lot about the technology (or "art") you're examining in, but most of this learning will come from searching the prior art rather than from reading the applications you're examining, because attorneys (most of whom have a basic science or engineering background) write most of these things (and frequently, they are mediocre translations from Japanese or Korean), and the legal aspects make the obfuscations practiced by the attorneys into an artform.Still, some people like it, and they stay at the USPTO until they retire.
I haven't figured out why yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240443</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>ProfMobius</author>
	<datestamp>1244378100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents.  Every time I read them, I think to myself, "whoever those patent examiners are, they are not getting paid enough."</p></div><p>Einstein was so bored when he was at the patent office that he did some thought experiments there.</p><p>We all know what he found while bored...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents .
Every time I read them , I think to myself , " whoever those patent examiners are , they are not getting paid enough .
" Einstein was so bored when he was at the patent office that he did some thought experiments there.We all know what he found while bored.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents.
Every time I read them, I think to myself, "whoever those patent examiners are, they are not getting paid enough.
"Einstein was so bored when he was at the patent office that he did some thought experiments there.We all know what he found while bored...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241147</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244388120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies are designed to make profit, not to go on ideological crusades against the system like you imagine.</p><p>If you want change to happen, write your congressman. Criticising Microsoft is taking the cowardly "it's someone else's responsibility, not mine" approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies are designed to make profit , not to go on ideological crusades against the system like you imagine.If you want change to happen , write your congressman .
Criticising Microsoft is taking the cowardly " it 's someone else 's responsibility , not mine " approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies are designed to make profit, not to go on ideological crusades against the system like you imagine.If you want change to happen, write your congressman.
Criticising Microsoft is taking the cowardly "it's someone else's responsibility, not mine" approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240193</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I code apps  that are highly parallel. Under Linux, *BSD, Solaris and other systems.<br>I use pthread plus atomic operations and have no problems with those.<br>What exactly are you talking about? Do you really think Linux is a programming language (your post sounds like you do)?<br>Please enlighten me why you think parallel processing is difficult, badly implemented or something similar with/in Linux because I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think so.</p><p>Oh and Unix systems had support for parallel processing long before Bill even thought of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I code apps that are highly parallel .
Under Linux , * BSD , Solaris and other systems.I use pthread plus atomic operations and have no problems with those.What exactly are you talking about ?
Do you really think Linux is a programming language ( your post sounds like you do ) ? Please enlighten me why you think parallel processing is difficult , badly implemented or something similar with/in Linux because I ca n't for the life of me imagine why you 'd think so.Oh and Unix systems had support for parallel processing long before Bill even thought of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I code apps  that are highly parallel.
Under Linux, *BSD, Solaris and other systems.I use pthread plus atomic operations and have no problems with those.What exactly are you talking about?
Do you really think Linux is a programming language (your post sounds like you do)?Please enlighten me why you think parallel processing is difficult, badly implemented or something similar with/in Linux because I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think so.Oh and Unix systems had support for parallel processing long before Bill even thought of Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240617</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1244380680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, basically you're saying the system is broken?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically you 're saying the system is broken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically you're saying the system is broken?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242821</id>
	<title>Another example of redicilous patents</title>
	<author>langenaam</author>
	<datestamp>1244402220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is another example of rediculous patents. It's like trying to patent the wheel.

There must be tons of prior art out there. For one, I've used Oracle parallel query since Oracle7, which was somewhere around 1998.

When will you Americans stop to subsidise the lawyers this way? It's a silly system whereby you have to get as many patents as possible, just to fight of somebody else doing the same thing, and the one who can pay the most lawyers wins...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another example of rediculous patents .
It 's like trying to patent the wheel .
There must be tons of prior art out there .
For one , I 've used Oracle parallel query since Oracle7 , which was somewhere around 1998 .
When will you Americans stop to subsidise the lawyers this way ?
It 's a silly system whereby you have to get as many patents as possible , just to fight of somebody else doing the same thing , and the one who can pay the most lawyers wins.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another example of rediculous patents.
It's like trying to patent the wheel.
There must be tons of prior art out there.
For one, I've used Oracle parallel query since Oracle7, which was somewhere around 1998.
When will you Americans stop to subsidise the lawyers this way?
It's a silly system whereby you have to get as many patents as possible, just to fight of somebody else doing the same thing, and the one who can pay the most lawyers wins...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242451</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>chthonicdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1244399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody better tell the admins of the computers on <a href="http://www.top500.org/" title="top500.org">this list</a> [top500.org] they're wasting their time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody better tell the admins of the computers on this list [ top500.org ] they 're wasting their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody better tell the admins of the computers on this list [top500.org] they're wasting their time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240561</id>
	<title>Sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like they won't stop until they can patent breathing too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Ballmer, don't even think about it, I said it first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like they wo n't stop until they can patent breathing too .
...Ballmer , do n't even think about it , I said it first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like they won't stop until they can patent breathing too.
...Ballmer, don't even think about it, I said it first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28246745</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1244391960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem here is that patent examiners are taking the claims at face value, particularly if the source is Microsoft, or other Major Sofware house.

The "Software house people must know what they are doing".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is that patent examiners are taking the claims at face value , particularly if the source is Microsoft , or other Major Sofware house .
The " Software house people must know what they are doing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is that patent examiners are taking the claims at face value, particularly if the source is Microsoft, or other Major Sofware house.
The "Software house people must know what they are doing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240811</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244383740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS SQL server has, since at least V7 (sql server 7) a parallel query facility, called Intra-Query Parallelisation. It is supposed to exploit extra cores for a single query.<br>It is buggy. In Sql server 7 it regularly deadlocked against itself, in sql server 2000 it actually could run slower than using a single core  both wall-clock time and total cpu time, and sometimes much worse things happened under heavy load.<br>Disable it. You can do this from enterprise manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS SQL server has , since at least V7 ( sql server 7 ) a parallel query facility , called Intra-Query Parallelisation .
It is supposed to exploit extra cores for a single query.It is buggy .
In Sql server 7 it regularly deadlocked against itself , in sql server 2000 it actually could run slower than using a single core both wall-clock time and total cpu time , and sometimes much worse things happened under heavy load.Disable it .
You can do this from enterprise manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS SQL server has, since at least V7 (sql server 7) a parallel query facility, called Intra-Query Parallelisation.
It is supposed to exploit extra cores for a single query.It is buggy.
In Sql server 7 it regularly deadlocked against itself, in sql server 2000 it actually could run slower than using a single core  both wall-clock time and total cpu time, and sometimes much worse things happened under heavy load.Disable it.
You can do this from enterprise manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240053</id>
	<title>Old stuff</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1244370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shame I don't have any of the code developed in the mid-late 80s where I worked for the Transputer - it's probably riddled with prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shame I do n't have any of the code developed in the mid-late 80s where I worked for the Transputer - it 's probably riddled with prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shame I don't have any of the code developed in the mid-late 80s where I worked for the Transputer - it's probably riddled with prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28249869</id>
	<title>3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did they file for all of them at the same time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did they file for all of them at the same time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did they file for all of them at the same time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241885</id>
	<title>Biased anti-Microsoft garbage article</title>
	<author>BasharTeg</author>
	<datestamp>1244395380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can say is, anyone who calls Microsoft Johnny-Come-Lately on parallelism is severely ignorant of the subject.  Especially wheen your link for the phrase goes to PLINQ, implying that this was their first effort in the world of concurrency and parallelism.</p><p>Compare Microsoft's I/O Completion Ports mechanism (involving both the scheduler and the event driven I/O architecture) and the fact that epoll() itself was the Johnny-Come-Lately technology, or the C10K problem was solved on IIS thanks to I/O Completion Ports before epoll() plus Apache 2 were ready for prime time, or that the NT kernel has had real threads since its inception and the Linux kernel was running "LinuxThreads" with vfork() until not more than a couple of years ago.  This was all at the same time that Windows developers were enjoying a system managed thread pool that handled all the math for best scalability on an N cpu setup.  Perhaps we shouldn't even bring up the weak aio API versus the mature async API under the NT kernel.  Or you could point out that MySQL and Postgress are ages behind the level of auto-parallelism available with unmodified queries in Microsoft SQL 2005 and 2008.</p><p>Or that when you look at technologies like PLINQ and parallel generic ForEach in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it brings easily learned and used parallelism not just to high end developers but to mainstream developers allowing a wider array of software to take advantage of the manycore era.</p><p>And finally, look at the fact that Johnny-Come-Lately may in fact be Johnny-Came-Right-On-Time.  Putting heavy efforts into their concurrency efforts back when 90\% of the multi-core computers had 2 or 4 cpus wasn't the best allocation of resources at the time.  In about 2006 when PLINQ was getting started, that was when the multi-core era was really kicking off.  Now Visual Studio 2010 is about to release with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 4.0 and technologies like PLINQ and parallel ForEach are mature and ready to go, it certainly seems like they timed it just right.</p><p>The people who were heavy into parallelism prior to Microsoft's efforts were mostly composed of specialization and academia.  The OSS crowd has been playing catch-up for the past 5 years and they still aren't there yet.  If there's one company that is going to bring concurrency and parallelism to a critical mass of developers, and to a critical mass of applications to benefit a majority of the users in this world, it's going to be Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is , anyone who calls Microsoft Johnny-Come-Lately on parallelism is severely ignorant of the subject .
Especially wheen your link for the phrase goes to PLINQ , implying that this was their first effort in the world of concurrency and parallelism.Compare Microsoft 's I/O Completion Ports mechanism ( involving both the scheduler and the event driven I/O architecture ) and the fact that epoll ( ) itself was the Johnny-Come-Lately technology , or the C10K problem was solved on IIS thanks to I/O Completion Ports before epoll ( ) plus Apache 2 were ready for prime time , or that the NT kernel has had real threads since its inception and the Linux kernel was running " LinuxThreads " with vfork ( ) until not more than a couple of years ago .
This was all at the same time that Windows developers were enjoying a system managed thread pool that handled all the math for best scalability on an N cpu setup .
Perhaps we should n't even bring up the weak aio API versus the mature async API under the NT kernel .
Or you could point out that MySQL and Postgress are ages behind the level of auto-parallelism available with unmodified queries in Microsoft SQL 2005 and 2008.Or that when you look at technologies like PLINQ and parallel generic ForEach in .NET , it brings easily learned and used parallelism not just to high end developers but to mainstream developers allowing a wider array of software to take advantage of the manycore era.And finally , look at the fact that Johnny-Come-Lately may in fact be Johnny-Came-Right-On-Time .
Putting heavy efforts into their concurrency efforts back when 90 \ % of the multi-core computers had 2 or 4 cpus was n't the best allocation of resources at the time .
In about 2006 when PLINQ was getting started , that was when the multi-core era was really kicking off .
Now Visual Studio 2010 is about to release with .NET 4.0 and technologies like PLINQ and parallel ForEach are mature and ready to go , it certainly seems like they timed it just right.The people who were heavy into parallelism prior to Microsoft 's efforts were mostly composed of specialization and academia .
The OSS crowd has been playing catch-up for the past 5 years and they still are n't there yet .
If there 's one company that is going to bring concurrency and parallelism to a critical mass of developers , and to a critical mass of applications to benefit a majority of the users in this world , it 's going to be Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is, anyone who calls Microsoft Johnny-Come-Lately on parallelism is severely ignorant of the subject.
Especially wheen your link for the phrase goes to PLINQ, implying that this was their first effort in the world of concurrency and parallelism.Compare Microsoft's I/O Completion Ports mechanism (involving both the scheduler and the event driven I/O architecture) and the fact that epoll() itself was the Johnny-Come-Lately technology, or the C10K problem was solved on IIS thanks to I/O Completion Ports before epoll() plus Apache 2 were ready for prime time, or that the NT kernel has had real threads since its inception and the Linux kernel was running "LinuxThreads" with vfork() until not more than a couple of years ago.
This was all at the same time that Windows developers were enjoying a system managed thread pool that handled all the math for best scalability on an N cpu setup.
Perhaps we shouldn't even bring up the weak aio API versus the mature async API under the NT kernel.
Or you could point out that MySQL and Postgress are ages behind the level of auto-parallelism available with unmodified queries in Microsoft SQL 2005 and 2008.Or that when you look at technologies like PLINQ and parallel generic ForEach in .NET, it brings easily learned and used parallelism not just to high end developers but to mainstream developers allowing a wider array of software to take advantage of the manycore era.And finally, look at the fact that Johnny-Come-Lately may in fact be Johnny-Came-Right-On-Time.
Putting heavy efforts into their concurrency efforts back when 90\% of the multi-core computers had 2 or 4 cpus wasn't the best allocation of resources at the time.
In about 2006 when PLINQ was getting started, that was when the multi-core era was really kicking off.
Now Visual Studio 2010 is about to release with .NET 4.0 and technologies like PLINQ and parallel ForEach are mature and ready to go, it certainly seems like they timed it just right.The people who were heavy into parallelism prior to Microsoft's efforts were mostly composed of specialization and academia.
The OSS crowd has been playing catch-up for the past 5 years and they still aren't there yet.
If there's one company that is going to bring concurrency and parallelism to a critical mass of developers, and to a critical mass of applications to benefit a majority of the users in this world, it's going to be Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241331</id>
	<title>Re:Can you spell "MapReduce" Microsoft?</title>
	<author>TranceThrust</author>
	<datestamp>1244390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only MapReduce; the global description of the patent (input, partition, repartition, output) seems just to be a prehistoric version of partitioners like MeTiS, parkway, Mondriaan, Zoltan, etc.

Prior art in abondance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only MapReduce ; the global description of the patent ( input , partition , repartition , output ) seems just to be a prehistoric version of partitioners like MeTiS , parkway , Mondriaan , Zoltan , etc .
Prior art in abondance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only MapReduce; the global description of the patent (input, partition, repartition, output) seems just to be a prehistoric version of partitioners like MeTiS, parkway, Mondriaan, Zoltan, etc.
Prior art in abondance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28248813</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>James Joyce is fucking my sister.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James Joyce is fucking my sister .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Joyce is fucking my sister.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241399</id>
	<title>scientific computation</title>
	<author>pigwiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1244390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is where the massively parallel applications are at.  I regularly write and run parallel code that will efficiently run over thousands of processors - my largest run to date was over 1024, 8 processor nodes, so 8192 processes parallelized.  It is all Linux - no exception.  I've yet to hear of a respectable production cluster running Windows.  In fact, I have yet to run into anybody who isn't running Linux on their desktop, in my line of work.  I regularly write and run parallel code - the analysis code for crunching the enormous data sets produced on the clusters - for my quad core desktop machine running Linux.  You've no clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is where the massively parallel applications are at .
I regularly write and run parallel code that will efficiently run over thousands of processors - my largest run to date was over 1024 , 8 processor nodes , so 8192 processes parallelized .
It is all Linux - no exception .
I 've yet to hear of a respectable production cluster running Windows .
In fact , I have yet to run into anybody who is n't running Linux on their desktop , in my line of work .
I regularly write and run parallel code - the analysis code for crunching the enormous data sets produced on the clusters - for my quad core desktop machine running Linux .
You 've no clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is where the massively parallel applications are at.
I regularly write and run parallel code that will efficiently run over thousands of processors - my largest run to date was over 1024, 8 processor nodes, so 8192 processes parallelized.
It is all Linux - no exception.
I've yet to hear of a respectable production cluster running Windows.
In fact, I have yet to run into anybody who isn't running Linux on their desktop, in my line of work.
I regularly write and run parallel code - the analysis code for crunching the enormous data sets produced on the clusters - for my quad core desktop machine running Linux.
You've no clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240771</id>
	<title>And furthermore...</title>
	<author>TheTrollToll</author>
	<datestamp>1244383140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i think that Microsoft's patents are shallow and pedantic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i think that Microsoft 's patents are shallow and pedantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think that Microsoft's patents are shallow and pedantic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241879</id>
	<title>Criminy</title>
	<author>Dega704</author>
	<datestamp>1244395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS is becoming quite the patent troll lately.  I suppose it's a form of self-preservation.  I mean, lets face it.  Between Google and open source software they know their once-impregnable empire is going to be in trouble if they don't galvanize their defenses in any way they can.  Personally I think they should focus on gaming.  Oh wait, I forgot they are trying to patent the ever-loving crap out of that too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is becoming quite the patent troll lately .
I suppose it 's a form of self-preservation .
I mean , lets face it .
Between Google and open source software they know their once-impregnable empire is going to be in trouble if they do n't galvanize their defenses in any way they can .
Personally I think they should focus on gaming .
Oh wait , I forgot they are trying to patent the ever-loving crap out of that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is becoming quite the patent troll lately.
I suppose it's a form of self-preservation.
I mean, lets face it.
Between Google and open source software they know their once-impregnable empire is going to be in trouble if they don't galvanize their defenses in any way they can.
Personally I think they should focus on gaming.
Oh wait, I forgot they are trying to patent the ever-loving crap out of that too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240711</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a software developer and small player in this market i must agree. I don't use Microsoft's products, nor I make living from selling/using them, but that doesn't change the fact you can't criticize Microsoft for playing the rules of the game.</p><p>However, what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules. They seem to be happy with things the way they are. I won't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid, just go and google it.</p><p>The same applies to IBM and other big vendors, possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell (but go and figure out how these two ended up...).</p><p>These companies lobby very successfully in favor of software patents. They act together, as a team. They profit from their actions and other companies suffer. I can't think of different way of naming it than a CARTEL.</p><p>They are doing this different way than other cartels do. They are not fixing prices, but use law system to enforce their privileged positions and make life of other companies much more difficult and - most important - expensive. This means their products are also more expensive, and here is real intention of having software patents system in place - not to allow new players to enter the game. This is a cartel, but I don't know if EU/US governments will ever realize it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a software developer and small player in this market i must agree .
I do n't use Microsoft 's products , nor I make living from selling/using them , but that does n't change the fact you ca n't criticize Microsoft for playing the rules of the game.However , what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules .
They seem to be happy with things the way they are .
I wo n't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid , just go and google it.The same applies to IBM and other big vendors , possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell ( but go and figure out how these two ended up... ) .These companies lobby very successfully in favor of software patents .
They act together , as a team .
They profit from their actions and other companies suffer .
I ca n't think of different way of naming it than a CARTEL.They are doing this different way than other cartels do .
They are not fixing prices , but use law system to enforce their privileged positions and make life of other companies much more difficult and - most important - expensive .
This means their products are also more expensive , and here is real intention of having software patents system in place - not to allow new players to enter the game .
This is a cartel , but I do n't know if EU/US governments will ever realize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a software developer and small player in this market i must agree.
I don't use Microsoft's products, nor I make living from selling/using them, but that doesn't change the fact you can't criticize Microsoft for playing the rules of the game.However, what you can blame Microsoft for is not trying to change the rules.
They seem to be happy with things the way they are.
I won't bring quotes from Bill Gates from past saying software patents is stupid, just go and google it.The same applies to IBM and other big vendors, possibly with the exception of Sun and Novell (but go and figure out how these two ended up...).These companies lobby very successfully in favor of software patents.
They act together, as a team.
They profit from their actions and other companies suffer.
I can't think of different way of naming it than a CARTEL.They are doing this different way than other cartels do.
They are not fixing prices, but use law system to enforce their privileged positions and make life of other companies much more difficult and - most important - expensive.
This means their products are also more expensive, and here is real intention of having software patents system in place - not to allow new players to enter the game.
This is a cartel, but I don't know if EU/US governments will ever realize it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28245381</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244378940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>REALLY?!? You missed the whole Beowulf cluster thing of the '90s? You're completely unaware of ANY of that? The architecture that fills most of the top 500 list? MPI, PVM, any of that ringing any bells? Ever heard of Google?</p><p>All of that happened at a time when no MS operating system could go long enough without a reboot to be part of a cluster (consider, how many minutes could you go with 1024 Windows '95 machines running at 100\% without something needing to be rebooted?).</p><p>So, YES, johnny-come-lately. I remember well the first year MS showed it's face at Supercomputing and groups of researchers from the national labs heckling and jeering them. You could tell when people consulting the exhibit map noticed that MS was there because of the snickering. It was the joke of the week!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>REALLY ? ! ?
You missed the whole Beowulf cluster thing of the '90s ?
You 're completely unaware of ANY of that ?
The architecture that fills most of the top 500 list ?
MPI , PVM , any of that ringing any bells ?
Ever heard of Google ? All of that happened at a time when no MS operating system could go long enough without a reboot to be part of a cluster ( consider , how many minutes could you go with 1024 Windows '95 machines running at 100 \ % without something needing to be rebooted ?
) .So , YES , johnny-come-lately .
I remember well the first year MS showed it 's face at Supercomputing and groups of researchers from the national labs heckling and jeering them .
You could tell when people consulting the exhibit map noticed that MS was there because of the snickering .
It was the joke of the week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>REALLY?!?
You missed the whole Beowulf cluster thing of the '90s?
You're completely unaware of ANY of that?
The architecture that fills most of the top 500 list?
MPI, PVM, any of that ringing any bells?
Ever heard of Google?All of that happened at a time when no MS operating system could go long enough without a reboot to be part of a cluster (consider, how many minutes could you go with 1024 Windows '95 machines running at 100\% without something needing to be rebooted?
).So, YES, johnny-come-lately.
I remember well the first year MS showed it's face at Supercomputing and groups of researchers from the national labs heckling and jeering them.
You could tell when people consulting the exhibit map noticed that MS was there because of the snickering.
It was the joke of the week!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240187</id>
	<title>Patenting what we already have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These patents just seem like the usual land grab situation.  The claim by MS that programs have been sequential for years is a bit BS since, regardless of the physical hardware the asynch calls and multithreading calls have been in the languages for at least 20 years.<br>Also the claims seem like they are trying to own what is already there as they all sound like web based search and load balancing situations.</p><p>I hope the USPTO realises and takes good technical advice to limit these claims.  Don't leave the mess for 'big money' to sort out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These patents just seem like the usual land grab situation .
The claim by MS that programs have been sequential for years is a bit BS since , regardless of the physical hardware the asynch calls and multithreading calls have been in the languages for at least 20 years.Also the claims seem like they are trying to own what is already there as they all sound like web based search and load balancing situations.I hope the USPTO realises and takes good technical advice to limit these claims .
Do n't leave the mess for 'big money ' to sort out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These patents just seem like the usual land grab situation.
The claim by MS that programs have been sequential for years is a bit BS since, regardless of the physical hardware the asynch calls and multithreading calls have been in the languages for at least 20 years.Also the claims seem like they are trying to own what is already there as they all sound like web based search and load balancing situations.I hope the USPTO realises and takes good technical advice to limit these claims.
Don't leave the mess for 'big money' to sort out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242171</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For starters there was the Transputer and the Oracle programming language from the 1980s. I'm sure that others can provide other examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters there was the Transputer and the Oracle programming language from the 1980s .
I 'm sure that others can provide other examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters there was the Transputer and the Oracle programming language from the 1980s.
I'm sure that others can provide other examples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240163</id>
	<title>Parallelism within queries is common today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many databases run individual queries in parallel, and there are often multiple disks (or machines) involved.  (In fact, apart from keeping your working set in memory -- not always practical -- having as many disks as you can affort has long been one way to speed up databases.  SSDs will have interesting effects, I'm sure.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many databases run individual queries in parallel , and there are often multiple disks ( or machines ) involved .
( In fact , apart from keeping your working set in memory -- not always practical -- having as many disks as you can affort has long been one way to speed up databases .
SSDs will have interesting effects , I 'm sure .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many databases run individual queries in parallel, and there are often multiple disks (or machines) involved.
(In fact, apart from keeping your working set in memory -- not always practical -- having as many disks as you can affort has long been one way to speed up databases.
SSDs will have interesting effects, I'm sure.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240319</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>nih</author>
	<datestamp>1244375940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I honestly can't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior year</p></div><p>You are infringing patent #20090144228, please delete all copies of infringing software or face legal action.<br> <br>MS Legal Department<br>Have a nice day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly ca n't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior yearYou are infringing patent # 20090144228 , please delete all copies of infringing software or face legal action .
MS Legal DepartmentHave a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly can't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior yearYou are infringing patent #20090144228, please delete all copies of infringing software or face legal action.
MS Legal DepartmentHave a nice day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241279</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.</p></div><p>Many Databases (Teradata, DB2, Oracle and even Microsoft - leaving out startups like Greenplum, AsterData etc.) have parallel queries to allow execution of a single query by many processes/threads simultaneously. Research on this began in the 80s (DeWitt's Gamma for e.g.) so there are many well understood techniques. And really, saying databases only have one disk is a little bit of a stretch. Many (maybe most) commercial database implementations will use many disks for a single database</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel , but I 'm not sure it would be any more efficient , because there is only one disk.Many Databases ( Teradata , DB2 , Oracle and even Microsoft - leaving out startups like Greenplum , AsterData etc .
) have parallel queries to allow execution of a single query by many processes/threads simultaneously .
Research on this began in the 80s ( DeWitt 's Gamma for e.g .
) so there are many well understood techniques .
And really , saying databases only have one disk is a little bit of a stretch .
Many ( maybe most ) commercial database implementations will use many disks for a single database</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.Many Databases (Teradata, DB2, Oracle and even Microsoft - leaving out startups like Greenplum, AsterData etc.
) have parallel queries to allow execution of a single query by many processes/threads simultaneously.
Research on this began in the 80s (DeWitt's Gamma for e.g.
) so there are many well understood techniques.
And really, saying databases only have one disk is a little bit of a stretch.
Many (maybe most) commercial database implementations will use many disks for a single database
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242769</id>
	<title>Only pirates will compile for multi-cores...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244401740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this goes through, will I be obligated to pay the imaginary property tax if I want to compile some code to use the multiple cores in my laptop? Now where do I enable the multi-core repository?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes through , will I be obligated to pay the imaginary property tax if I want to compile some code to use the multiple cores in my laptop ?
Now where do I enable the multi-core repository ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this goes through, will I be obligated to pay the imaginary property tax if I want to compile some code to use the multiple cores in my laptop?
Now where do I enable the multi-core repository?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240177</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe james joyce was a patent examiner</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe james joyce was a patent examiner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe james joyce was a patent examiner</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241059</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1244387160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM had hard disks in their mainframe computers that had more than one head assembly. I am not sure if they could read or write to the same surfaces or were just assembled in a way one head acted on one surface only but it is easy to imagine a high-performance drive with more than one set of heads that can travel independently.</p><p>And if your database server has only one drive one one controller, you are not really serious about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM had hard disks in their mainframe computers that had more than one head assembly .
I am not sure if they could read or write to the same surfaces or were just assembled in a way one head acted on one surface only but it is easy to imagine a high-performance drive with more than one set of heads that can travel independently.And if your database server has only one drive one one controller , you are not really serious about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM had hard disks in their mainframe computers that had more than one head assembly.
I am not sure if they could read or write to the same surfaces or were just assembled in a way one head acted on one surface only but it is easy to imagine a high-performance drive with more than one set of heads that can travel independently.And if your database server has only one drive one one controller, you are not really serious about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242347</id>
	<title>Some kind of timewarp.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244398740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having worked at Teradata, where Parallel Data Processing is the life and breath, how does Microsoft expect to add 'data' in front of parallel processing and expect to own it? Teradata's prior art begins in '79. I'm not sure, but wasn't Microsoft incorporated after that?</p><p>Really. Can't the Patent Office bill applicants with actual, putative and stupidity costs to stop such bullshit filings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked at Teradata , where Parallel Data Processing is the life and breath , how does Microsoft expect to add 'data ' in front of parallel processing and expect to own it ?
Teradata 's prior art begins in '79 .
I 'm not sure , but was n't Microsoft incorporated after that ? Really .
Ca n't the Patent Office bill applicants with actual , putative and stupidity costs to stop such bullshit filings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked at Teradata, where Parallel Data Processing is the life and breath, how does Microsoft expect to add 'data' in front of parallel processing and expect to own it?
Teradata's prior art begins in '79.
I'm not sure, but wasn't Microsoft incorporated after that?Really.
Can't the Patent Office bill applicants with actual, putative and stupidity costs to stop such bullshit filings?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240337</id>
	<title>Parallel database</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1244376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years ago there was a data storage sytem developed by, I think, ICL, which had a correlator built into the disk data path for each disk arm so that it could search every head of a multi-platter disk at the same. But indexing turned out to be a better method than brute force, so it died. But it was, nonetheless, a highly parallel database search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago there was a data storage sytem developed by , I think , ICL , which had a correlator built into the disk data path for each disk arm so that it could search every head of a multi-platter disk at the same .
But indexing turned out to be a better method than brute force , so it died .
But it was , nonetheless , a highly parallel database search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago there was a data storage sytem developed by, I think, ICL, which had a correlator built into the disk data path for each disk arm so that it could search every head of a multi-platter disk at the same.
But indexing turned out to be a better method than brute force, so it died.
But it was, nonetheless, a highly parallel database search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242297</id>
	<title>Re:Looks ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244398260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single part of those patents are based on prior art. Every. Single. One.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single part of those patents are based on prior art .
Every. Single .
One .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single part of those patents are based on prior art.
Every. Single.
One.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161</id>
	<title>Just what the world needs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244372940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is really just what we need: for somebody to come along and encumber the future of parallel processing with a metric fuckload of patents.  Thanks, Microsoft!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is really just what we need : for somebody to come along and encumber the future of parallel processing with a metric fuckload of patents .
Thanks , Microsoft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is really just what we need: for somebody to come along and encumber the future of parallel processing with a metric fuckload of patents.
Thanks, Microsoft!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240361</id>
	<title>Late but not too late</title>
	<author>De-Jean7777</author>
	<datestamp>1244376900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They may be coming in late on the parallel processing game, but they're ahead when it needs to patent it. They'd patent parallel parking if they could.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They may be coming in late on the parallel processing game , but they 're ahead when it needs to patent it .
They 'd patent parallel parking if they could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may be coming in late on the parallel processing game, but they're ahead when it needs to patent it.
They'd patent parallel parking if they could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240199</id>
	<title>so basically MS invented MapReduce and PVM algos</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1244373780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These patents look very much like they would cover MapReduce, the parallel search patent is obviously just a specification of a straightforward parallel search implementation e.g. using PVM (many trivial implementations exist since the 90s).<p>The USPTO will once again be the laughing stock of the whole IT field if they grant these patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These patents look very much like they would cover MapReduce , the parallel search patent is obviously just a specification of a straightforward parallel search implementation e.g .
using PVM ( many trivial implementations exist since the 90s ) .The USPTO will once again be the laughing stock of the whole IT field if they grant these patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These patents look very much like they would cover MapReduce, the parallel search patent is obviously just a specification of a straightforward parallel search implementation e.g.
using PVM (many trivial implementations exist since the 90s).The USPTO will once again be the laughing stock of the whole IT field if they grant these patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240117</id>
	<title>Map Reduce by any other name</title>
	<author>mysterons</author>
	<datestamp>1244371860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;
1. A computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions for performing a method comprising:re-writing a query to contain data parallel operations that include partitioning and merging, wherein the query identifies at least one input data source;partitioning the at least one input data source into a plurality of initial partitions;performing a parallel repartitioning operation on the initial partitions, thereby generating a plurality of secondary partitions; andperforming a parallel execution of the query using the secondary partitions, thereby generating a plurality of output sets.
&gt;

or indeed, any other obvious way to do parallel processing.


<p>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130</a> [theonion.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 1 .
A computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions for performing a method comprising : re-writing a query to contain data parallel operations that include partitioning and merging , wherein the query identifies at least one input data source ; partitioning the at least one input data source into a plurality of initial partitions ; performing a parallel repartitioning operation on the initial partitions , thereby generating a plurality of secondary partitions ; andperforming a parallel execution of the query using the secondary partitions , thereby generating a plurality of output sets .
&gt; or indeed , any other obvious way to do parallel processing .
http : //www.theonion.com/content/node/29130 [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;
1.
A computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions for performing a method comprising:re-writing a query to contain data parallel operations that include partitioning and merging, wherein the query identifies at least one input data source;partitioning the at least one input data source into a plurality of initial partitions;performing a parallel repartitioning operation on the initial partitions, thereby generating a plurality of secondary partitions; andperforming a parallel execution of the query using the secondary partitions, thereby generating a plurality of output sets.
&gt;

or indeed, any other obvious way to do parallel processing.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130 [theonion.com]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</id>
	<title>Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents.  Every time I read them, I think to myself, "whoever those patent examiners are, they are not getting paid enough."  The only way you could enjoy writing those things is if you liked giving people pain, and were dreaming of how much you actually were going to hurt the poor examiner.<br> <br>
After reading through the claims in the third patent, I honestly can't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior year.  They seem to imply that it might be applied to a database, but I couldn't find where it actually specified it (of course the pain of what I was doing somewhat distracted me).  Can anyone else see anything in there that is different?<br> <br>
The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database, and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.  Having two threads isn't going to speed anything up there, and might actually cause the disk to thrash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents .
Every time I read them , I think to myself , " whoever those patent examiners are , they are not getting paid enough .
" The only way you could enjoy writing those things is if you liked giving people pain , and were dreaming of how much you actually were going to hurt the poor examiner .
After reading through the claims in the third patent , I honestly ca n't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior year .
They seem to imply that it might be applied to a database , but I could n't find where it actually specified it ( of course the pain of what I was doing somewhat distracted me ) .
Can anyone else see anything in there that is different ?
The first patent looks kind of interesting , inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database , and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel , but I 'm not sure it would be any more efficient , because there is only one disk .
Having two threads is n't going to speed anything up there , and might actually cause the disk to thrash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine anyone making a living off of reading software patents.
Every time I read them, I think to myself, "whoever those patent examiners are, they are not getting paid enough.
"  The only way you could enjoy writing those things is if you liked giving people pain, and were dreaming of how much you actually were going to hurt the poor examiner.
After reading through the claims in the third patent, I honestly can't see how it is different than the producer/consumer program I wrote my Junior year.
They seem to imply that it might be applied to a database, but I couldn't find where it actually specified it (of course the pain of what I was doing somewhat distracted me).
Can anyone else see anything in there that is different?
The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database, and I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.
Having two threads isn't going to speed anything up there, and might actually cause the disk to thrash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240215</id>
	<title>So, I went looking</title>
	<author>Hillview</author>
	<datestamp>1244374200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>found an <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/advisory/notices/meetings2009jun9.htm" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow"> which perports to be publicly accessible.. does anyone know if it's possible to submit questions via the webcast?
If so.. slashdot them, next tuesday?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</a> [uspto.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>found an which perports to be publicly accessible.. does anyone know if it 's possible to submit questions via the webcast ?
If so.. slashdot them , next tuesday ?
; ) [ uspto.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>found an  which perports to be publicly accessible.. does anyone know if it's possible to submit questions via the webcast?
If so.. slashdot them, next tuesday?
;) [uspto.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240175</id>
	<title>as simple as and</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1244373120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And slashdot doesn't get my humour.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And slashdot does n't get my humour .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And slashdot doesn't get my humour.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240151</id>
	<title>Let's not forget</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244372640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the recent court ruling that makes it more difficult to get software patents in the first place. There is a good chance that even if they are not challenged due to prior art, they wouldn't pass muster anyway.
<br> <br>
Serve the bastards right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the recent court ruling that makes it more difficult to get software patents in the first place .
There is a good chance that even if they are not challenged due to prior art , they would n't pass muster anyway .
Serve the bastards right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the recent court ruling that makes it more difficult to get software patents in the first place.
There is a good chance that even if they are not challenged due to prior art, they wouldn't pass muster anyway.
Serve the bastards right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241167</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>chudnall</author>
	<datestamp>1244388300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least they filed the patents in parallel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they filed the patents in parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they filed the patents in parallel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240593</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1244380440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK's CARDS (Content Addressable Relational Data Store) database engine, on which I worked in the 1980s, did this kind of stuff (Using RAID, though we didnt call it that at the time). Data was retrieved from multiple HDs using an array of Transputers, managed by a workstation that was similar to Sun workstations of the day (double-extended triple Eurocard with Motorola 68020 processor and Unix). Data relationships described graphically (like the stuff in Access, but more powerful).<p>So its not, like, <b>a novel invention</b> or anything. Please can I have a patent on "a round device for rolling heavy loads along paved areas". Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK 's CARDS ( Content Addressable Relational Data Store ) database engine , on which I worked in the 1980s , did this kind of stuff ( Using RAID , though we didnt call it that at the time ) .
Data was retrieved from multiple HDs using an array of Transputers , managed by a workstation that was similar to Sun workstations of the day ( double-extended triple Eurocard with Motorola 68020 processor and Unix ) .
Data relationships described graphically ( like the stuff in Access , but more powerful ) .So its not , like , a novel invention or anything .
Please can I have a patent on " a round device for rolling heavy loads along paved areas " .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK's CARDS (Content Addressable Relational Data Store) database engine, on which I worked in the 1980s, did this kind of stuff (Using RAID, though we didnt call it that at the time).
Data was retrieved from multiple HDs using an array of Transputers, managed by a workstation that was similar to Sun workstations of the day (double-extended triple Eurocard with Motorola 68020 processor and Unix).
Data relationships described graphically (like the stuff in Access, but more powerful).So its not, like, a novel invention or anything.
Please can I have a patent on "a round device for rolling heavy loads along paved areas".
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240135</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244372040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PAR<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; First post ! posts<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; First post ! posts<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; First post ! posts<br>CASE post<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; annoying<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SEQ<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Moderate to Hell ! moderations<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Write a better, Microsoft bashing post ! posts<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; amusing<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SEQ<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Moderate to Heaven ! moderations<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Write a better, Microsoft bashing post ! posts<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; indifferent<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SEQ<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Write a better, Microsoft bashing post ! posts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PAR         First post !
posts         First post !
posts         First post !
postsCASE post         annoying                 SEQ                         Moderate to Hell !
moderations                         Write a better , Microsoft bashing post !
posts         amusing                 SEQ                         Moderate to Heaven !
moderations                         Write a better , Microsoft bashing post !
posts         indifferent                 SEQ                         Write a better , Microsoft bashing post !
posts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PAR
        First post !
posts
        First post !
posts
        First post !
postsCASE post
        annoying
                SEQ
                        Moderate to Hell !
moderations
                        Write a better, Microsoft bashing post !
posts
        amusing
                SEQ
                        Moderate to Heaven !
moderations
                        Write a better, Microsoft bashing post !
posts
        indifferent
                SEQ
                        Write a better, Microsoft bashing post !
posts</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240093</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Linux isn't a programming language. And if you think Microsfot is "light years" ahead of everyone else, you're severely misinformed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.Linux is n't a programming language .
And if you think Microsfot is " light years " ahead of everyone else , you 're severely misinformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.Linux isn't a programming language.
And if you think Microsfot is "light years" ahead of everyone else, you're severely misinformed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28245527</id>
	<title>PGAS and TBB</title>
	<author>bruthasj</author>
	<datestamp>1244380440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the description, it sounds like this is found in <a href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-tbb/" title="intel.com">TBB</a> [intel.com] and research done for DARPA in <a href="http://pact09.renci.org/pgas.php" title="renci.org">PGAS</a> [renci.org]. GCN had a blog post, "<a href="http://gcn.com/blogs/tech-blog/2009/06/new-parallel-processing-languages.aspx" title="gcn.com">Does parallel processing require new languages?</a> [gcn.com]", about this the other day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the description , it sounds like this is found in TBB [ intel.com ] and research done for DARPA in PGAS [ renci.org ] .
GCN had a blog post , " Does parallel processing require new languages ?
[ gcn.com ] " , about this the other day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the description, it sounds like this is found in TBB [intel.com] and research done for DARPA in PGAS [renci.org].
GCN had a blog post, "Does parallel processing require new languages?
[gcn.com]", about this the other day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242571</id>
	<title>New patent rejection policy:"Obvious next"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244400180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason of patents is to encourage innovation. Such "obvious next" technologies must be rejected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason of patents is to encourage innovation .
Such " obvious next " technologies must be rejected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason of patents is to encourage innovation.
Such "obvious next" technologies must be rejected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240555</id>
	<title>Patents are simply monopolies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got problems with the anti trust laws? Don't know how to deal with it? Simple: patent stuff. That way you get a legal monopoly and stifle the competition the easy way.</p><p>These kind of patents serve no purpose other than to prevent competing organisations from developing useful goods and services. They hold back innovation and stifle competition.</p><p>It is not as though others would not have come up with the same solutions (and most probably had already).</p><p>So why would politicians allow this state of affairs to continue? Who is lobbying to keep the patent system the way it is and maybe even extend it? Who benefits? (hint: lawyers and shareholders in large corporations - that is to say people who are already wealthy, trying to make sure they get an even bigger slice of the cake)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got problems with the anti trust laws ?
Do n't know how to deal with it ?
Simple : patent stuff .
That way you get a legal monopoly and stifle the competition the easy way.These kind of patents serve no purpose other than to prevent competing organisations from developing useful goods and services .
They hold back innovation and stifle competition.It is not as though others would not have come up with the same solutions ( and most probably had already ) .So why would politicians allow this state of affairs to continue ?
Who is lobbying to keep the patent system the way it is and maybe even extend it ?
Who benefits ?
( hint : lawyers and shareholders in large corporations - that is to say people who are already wealthy , trying to make sure they get an even bigger slice of the cake )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got problems with the anti trust laws?
Don't know how to deal with it?
Simple: patent stuff.
That way you get a legal monopoly and stifle the competition the easy way.These kind of patents serve no purpose other than to prevent competing organisations from developing useful goods and services.
They hold back innovation and stifle competition.It is not as though others would not have come up with the same solutions (and most probably had already).So why would politicians allow this state of affairs to continue?
Who is lobbying to keep the patent system the way it is and maybe even extend it?
Who benefits?
(hint: lawyers and shareholders in large corporations - that is to say people who are already wealthy, trying to make sure they get an even bigger slice of the cake)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241309</id>
	<title>Microsoft trying to pwn Google</title>
	<author>cmaxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my reading, if these patents are granted.</p><p>It also pwns LDAP, and ORACLE, and well, pretty much everything that will run on multicore CPUs and GPGPUs.</p><p>Lovely, time to take up an honest trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my reading , if these patents are granted.It also pwns LDAP , and ORACLE , and well , pretty much everything that will run on multicore CPUs and GPGPUs.Lovely , time to take up an honest trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my reading, if these patents are granted.It also pwns LDAP, and ORACLE, and well, pretty much everything that will run on multicore CPUs and GPGPUs.Lovely, time to take up an honest trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243903</id>
	<title>Re:Just what the world needs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's basically Microsoft's core business model in action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically Microsoft 's core business model in action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically Microsoft's core business model in action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240115</id>
	<title>Yes but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but...<br>The big question is:<br>If the three patents are 'processed in parallel' by the USPTO, would that constituate prior art<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but...The big question is : If the three patents are 'processed in parallel ' by the USPTO , would that constituate prior art ; -0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but...The big question is:If the three patents are 'processed in parallel' by the USPTO, would that constituate prior art ;-0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240315</id>
	<title>Looks ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244375820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you gotta give it to Microsoft this time. It seems that these patents are all real and do cover significant innovation and no prior art. What's right is right. When you invent something you have to protect your invention.</p><p>After all patents were made to protect the little inventor from big companies, and this is a great example of the patent system working beautifully</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you got ta give it to Microsoft this time .
It seems that these patents are all real and do cover significant innovation and no prior art .
What 's right is right .
When you invent something you have to protect your invention.After all patents were made to protect the little inventor from big companies , and this is a great example of the patent system working beautifully</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you gotta give it to Microsoft this time.
It seems that these patents are all real and do cover significant innovation and no prior art.
What's right is right.
When you invent something you have to protect your invention.After all patents were made to protect the little inventor from big companies, and this is a great example of the patent system working beautifully</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240577</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>KeithJM</author>
	<datestamp>1244380320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk</p></div><p>There is more than one disk.  Remember we're not running databases on your laptop.  The first time I saw one table spread out over multiple disks it was an Informix database and the feature was called Fragmentation.  I believe SQL Server calls it sharding.  Once you do that, it's easy enough to do your queries in parallel.  Informix not only let you roughly configure how many threads and how much memory to use for parallel queries, but it did all of this over 10 years ago.

Here's a link to the relevant documation:
<a href="http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch20/ch20.htm#Heading4" title="rinet.ru">http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch20/ch20.htm#Heading4</a> [rinet.ru]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel , but I 'm not sure it would be any more efficient , because there is only one diskThere is more than one disk .
Remember we 're not running databases on your laptop .
The first time I saw one table spread out over multiple disks it was an Informix database and the feature was called Fragmentation .
I believe SQL Server calls it sharding .
Once you do that , it 's easy enough to do your queries in parallel .
Informix not only let you roughly configure how many threads and how much memory to use for parallel queries , but it did all of this over 10 years ago .
Here 's a link to the relevant documation : http : //docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch20/ch20.htm # Heading4 [ rinet.ru ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one diskThere is more than one disk.
Remember we're not running databases on your laptop.
The first time I saw one table spread out over multiple disks it was an Informix database and the feature was called Fragmentation.
I believe SQL Server calls it sharding.
Once you do that, it's easy enough to do your queries in parallel.
Informix not only let you roughly configure how many threads and how much memory to use for parallel queries, but it did all of this over 10 years ago.
Here's a link to the relevant documation:
http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch20/ch20.htm#Heading4 [rinet.ru]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240173</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it. then throw in some data."</p><p>Funny, but I do this every day. Say, does Windows support zero-copy Infiniband links? How about MPI performance? How about fire&amp;forget clustered processes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it .
then throw in some data .
" Funny , but I do this every day .
Say , does Windows support zero-copy Infiniband links ?
How about MPI performance ?
How about fire&amp;forget clustered processes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.
then throw in some data.
"Funny, but I do this every day.
Say, does Windows support zero-copy Infiniband links?
How about MPI performance?
How about fire&amp;forget clustered processes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28251825</id>
	<title>genecavanaugh@gmail.com</title>
	<author>patents</author>
	<datestamp>1244480160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we are missing the point here:
I am a "patent" (read, IP) attorney.
While I believe in patents, when used in the way that the founding fathers intended in the US Constitution, Congress (which often does good things, and often does incredibly stupid things) provided that the USPTO be funded by the FEES they charge applicants!
So, Congress is constantly pushing the USPTO to be big and efficient, and the USPTO can do this only if they collect FEES - this is a recipe for disaster, or at least, for a "take-over" by big corporations (which pay most of the FEES).
We need public funding of the USPTO, as well as campaign finance reform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we are missing the point here : I am a " patent " ( read , IP ) attorney .
While I believe in patents , when used in the way that the founding fathers intended in the US Constitution , Congress ( which often does good things , and often does incredibly stupid things ) provided that the USPTO be funded by the FEES they charge applicants !
So , Congress is constantly pushing the USPTO to be big and efficient , and the USPTO can do this only if they collect FEES - this is a recipe for disaster , or at least , for a " take-over " by big corporations ( which pay most of the FEES ) .
We need public funding of the USPTO , as well as campaign finance reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we are missing the point here:
I am a "patent" (read, IP) attorney.
While I believe in patents, when used in the way that the founding fathers intended in the US Constitution, Congress (which often does good things, and often does incredibly stupid things) provided that the USPTO be funded by the FEES they charge applicants!
So, Congress is constantly pushing the USPTO to be big and efficient, and the USPTO can do this only if they collect FEES - this is a recipe for disaster, or at least, for a "take-over" by big corporations (which pay most of the FEES).
We need public funding of the USPTO, as well as campaign finance reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242677</id>
	<title>Google, AKA "parallel computing prior art, inc."</title>
	<author>loxosceles</author>
	<datestamp>1244401140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google alone must have prior art on just about every single claim in all 3 patents.</p><p>Hopefully Google will also have the guts to bash MS over the metaphorical skull with a ton of overlapping patents.  That way MS gets their ass handed to them -- by their worst enemy no less -- and meanwhile the patent examiner who was responsible for granting these also gets reassigned to review patents on toilets and PVC pipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google alone must have prior art on just about every single claim in all 3 patents.Hopefully Google will also have the guts to bash MS over the metaphorical skull with a ton of overlapping patents .
That way MS gets their ass handed to them -- by their worst enemy no less -- and meanwhile the patent examiner who was responsible for granting these also gets reassigned to review patents on toilets and PVC pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google alone must have prior art on just about every single claim in all 3 patents.Hopefully Google will also have the guts to bash MS over the metaphorical skull with a ton of overlapping patents.
That way MS gets their ass handed to them -- by their worst enemy no less -- and meanwhile the patent examiner who was responsible for granting these also gets reassigned to review patents on toilets and PVC pipe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240535</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of the Game</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1244379900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244373960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a database</p></div><p>I don't think so. From reading the claims, it seems to be quite obviously a patent for <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163329.aspx" title="microsoft.com">Parallel LINQ</a> [microsoft.com] to me - it specifically covers all LINQ operators one by one. And PLINQ isn't for databases - it's for in-memory data. Essentially, it's just map/filter/fold/join on arbitrary sequences with automatic parallelization.</p><p>Though I don't see why it wouldn't be just as applicable to databases (which are, after all, just advanced implementations of the above).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.</p></div><p>Records aren't read from disk one-by-one - they are usually read in pages, and once in-memory, it's obviously faster to e.g. filter rows in parallel on as many cores as there are available. Doing it for a simple SELECT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. WHERE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is trivial. The trick is to get it right for operations involving joins, grouping, and ordering, with arbitrary sequencing and possibly nesting. Which, if I understood correctly, is what the patent is about.</p><p>Anyway, for a shared-use RDBMS, it might be moot, because it usually has more than one query to process at any given time - and so it's easy to load-balance all cores just by assigning queries to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first patent looks kind of interesting , inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a databaseI do n't think so .
From reading the claims , it seems to be quite obviously a patent for Parallel LINQ [ microsoft.com ] to me - it specifically covers all LINQ operators one by one .
And PLINQ is n't for databases - it 's for in-memory data .
Essentially , it 's just map/filter/fold/join on arbitrary sequences with automatic parallelization.Though I do n't see why it would n't be just as applicable to databases ( which are , after all , just advanced implementations of the above ) .I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel , but I 'm not sure it would be any more efficient , because there is only one disk.Records are n't read from disk one-by-one - they are usually read in pages , and once in-memory , it 's obviously faster to e.g .
filter rows in parallel on as many cores as there are available .
Doing it for a simple SELECT .. WHERE .. is trivial .
The trick is to get it right for operations involving joins , grouping , and ordering , with arbitrary sequencing and possibly nesting .
Which , if I understood correctly , is what the patent is about.Anyway , for a shared-use RDBMS , it might be moot , because it usually has more than one query to process at any given time - and so it 's easy to load-balance all cores just by assigning queries to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first patent looks kind of interesting, inasmuch as it seems like they are applying it to a databaseI don't think so.
From reading the claims, it seems to be quite obviously a patent for Parallel LINQ [microsoft.com] to me - it specifically covers all LINQ operators one by one.
And PLINQ isn't for databases - it's for in-memory data.
Essentially, it's just map/filter/fold/join on arbitrary sequences with automatic parallelization.Though I don't see why it wouldn't be just as applicable to databases (which are, after all, just advanced implementations of the above).I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk.Records aren't read from disk one-by-one - they are usually read in pages, and once in-memory, it's obviously faster to e.g.
filter rows in parallel on as many cores as there are available.
Doing it for a simple SELECT .. WHERE .. is trivial.
The trick is to get it right for operations involving joins, grouping, and ordering, with arbitrary sequencing and possibly nesting.
Which, if I understood correctly, is what the patent is about.Anyway, for a shared-use RDBMS, it might be moot, because it usually has more than one query to process at any given time - and so it's easy to load-balance all cores just by assigning queries to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240167</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.</p></div></blockquote><p>It can be as simple as throwing in "rsh" and sending the task to another system - that's a parallel processing method still in use that predates linux.  I suggest the above poster uses google to find out what parallel processing is and look at the many different ways of dividing up the tasks, kicking of the processes and getting some sort of results at the end.<br>Microsoft are the new kids on the block and their licencing alone makes them a very poor choice for clustering so I haven't heard of any production software that will actually run on the platform.  There has to be something because it's been a couple of years now.  Does anyone have any good examples?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.It can be as simple as throwing in " rsh " and sending the task to another system - that 's a parallel processing method still in use that predates linux .
I suggest the above poster uses google to find out what parallel processing is and look at the many different ways of dividing up the tasks , kicking of the processes and getting some sort of results at the end.Microsoft are the new kids on the block and their licencing alone makes them a very poor choice for clustering so I have n't heard of any production software that will actually run on the platform .
There has to be something because it 's been a couple of years now .
Does anyone have any good examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try programming in linux for one day and then throw parallel processing into it.It can be as simple as throwing in "rsh" and sending the task to another system - that's a parallel processing method still in use that predates linux.
I suggest the above poster uses google to find out what parallel processing is and look at the many different ways of dividing up the tasks, kicking of the processes and getting some sort of results at the end.Microsoft are the new kids on the block and their licencing alone makes them a very poor choice for clustering so I haven't heard of any production software that will actually run on the platform.
There has to be something because it's been a couple of years now.
Does anyone have any good examples?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240479</id>
	<title>What cheek!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244378640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone tell them to try to get ONE thing at once right before they try to fuck up your system multiple ways simultanously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone tell them to try to get ONE thing at once right before they try to fuck up your system multiple ways simultanously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone tell them to try to get ONE thing at once right before they try to fuck up your system multiple ways simultanously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241469</id>
	<title>Re:Pain of Patents is in the reading</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1244391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, isn't that just MapReduce?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , is n't that just MapReduce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, isn't that just MapReduce?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240157</id>
	<title>Re:pffff</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244372760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think that somebody that's light-years ahead when it comes to parallel processing would rule the roost in the <a href="http://www.top500.org/stats/list/31/osfam" title="top500.org">Top 500</a> [top500.org] supercomputer list.   I'm sure there's a good explanation, though....just waiting to hear it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think that somebody that 's light-years ahead when it comes to parallel processing would rule the roost in the Top 500 [ top500.org ] supercomputer list .
I 'm sure there 's a good explanation , though....just waiting to hear it .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think that somebody that's light-years ahead when it comes to parallel processing would rule the roost in the Top 500 [top500.org] supercomputer list.
I'm sure there's a good explanation, though....just waiting to hear it.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28246745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28251689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28245381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0233230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28248813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28245381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28246745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28248813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28242677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28243903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28251689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28241331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0233230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0233230.28240935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
