<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1743230</id>
	<title>BOINC Exceeds 2 Petaflop/s Barrier</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247598360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:matthew...mccleary@@@gmail...com" rel="nofollow">Myrrh</a> writes <i>"Though an official announcement has not yet been made, it would appear that the <a href="http://boinc.berkeley.edu/">BOINC project</a> as a whole has exceeded two petaflop/s performance. The top page features this legend: '24-hour average: 2,793.53 TeraFLOPS.' According to last month's  <a href="http://www.top500.org/lists/2009/06">Top500 list</a> of supercomputers, BOINC's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer, RoadRunner, by more than a factor of two (with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myrrh writes " Though an official announcement has not yet been made , it would appear that the BOINC project as a whole has exceeded two petaflop/s performance .
The top page features this legend : '24-hour average : 2,793.53 TeraFLOPS .
' According to last month 's Top500 list of supercomputers , BOINC 's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer , RoadRunner , by more than a factor of two ( with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myrrh writes "Though an official announcement has not yet been made, it would appear that the BOINC project as a whole has exceeded two petaflop/s performance.
The top page features this legend: '24-hour average: 2,793.53 TeraFLOPS.
' According to last month's  Top500 list of supercomputers, BOINC's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer, RoadRunner, by more than a factor of two (with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700081</id>
	<title>could Professor Farnsworth use it?</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1247592480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but can it render hentai anime ultraporn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but can it render hentai anime ultraporn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but can it render hentai anime ultraporn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699847</id>
	<title>Re:Considering a spherical cow: 140 tons/hour CO2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 GFlop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/100W is way off if you consider this http://techgage.com/article/intel\_core\_i7\_performance\_preview/9</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 GFlop /100W is way off if you consider this http : //techgage.com/article/intel \ _core \ _i7 \ _performance \ _preview/9</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 GFlop /100W is way off if you consider this http://techgage.com/article/intel\_core\_i7\_performance\_preview/9</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</id>
	<title>I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 output..</title>
	<author>Antony T Curtis</author>
	<datestamp>1247602260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good question to ask is how many kWh were consumed for that computing output.</p><p>Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known, it should be possible to calculate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good question to ask is how many kWh were consumed for that computing output.Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known , it should be possible to calculate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good question to ask is how many kWh were consumed for that computing output.Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known, it should be possible to calculate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696601</id>
	<title>Barrier?</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1247567220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was there some sort of fundamental, theoretical limit that could have made getting to 2 petaflop difficult or impossible?  Did a graph of BOINC computer power vs time ramp up from zero, stall around 2 PFLOP, and only now punch through?  Did the administrators have to come up with some sort of breakthrough or new insight to reach this mark?  Two PFLOP is just a round number - is it really any different from 1.9 or 2.1?  <br> <br>

I think not: 2 petaflops is just a matter of recruiting enough computers and having them running BOINC at the same time.  If it has achieved this mark, then it couldn't have been that much of a barrier, could it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was there some sort of fundamental , theoretical limit that could have made getting to 2 petaflop difficult or impossible ?
Did a graph of BOINC computer power vs time ramp up from zero , stall around 2 PFLOP , and only now punch through ?
Did the administrators have to come up with some sort of breakthrough or new insight to reach this mark ?
Two PFLOP is just a round number - is it really any different from 1.9 or 2.1 ?
I think not : 2 petaflops is just a matter of recruiting enough computers and having them running BOINC at the same time .
If it has achieved this mark , then it could n't have been that much of a barrier , could it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was there some sort of fundamental, theoretical limit that could have made getting to 2 petaflop difficult or impossible?
Did a graph of BOINC computer power vs time ramp up from zero, stall around 2 PFLOP, and only now punch through?
Did the administrators have to come up with some sort of breakthrough or new insight to reach this mark?
Two PFLOP is just a round number - is it really any different from 1.9 or 2.1?
I think not: 2 petaflops is just a matter of recruiting enough computers and having them running BOINC at the same time.
If it has achieved this mark, then it couldn't have been that much of a barrier, could it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696671</id>
	<title>Re:Homeless/Unemployed People On Treadmills...</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1247567520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alas, the economics of this are unlikely to pan out.  <br> <br>

A fit human can produce somewhere between 150 and 300 watts continuously, with perhaps the occassional excursion to higher.  (In contrast, one horsepower is approximately 750 W.)  So, in a day, a person might be able to pump out 1-2 kWh, which on the wholesale electrical market might fetch a whopping $0.10.  If the company is clever, they'd store and release that power during peak demand, in which case they might get twice that.  Could you live on $0.10 a day?  A homeless person couldn't even buy enough food calories for that electrical output.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alas , the economics of this are unlikely to pan out .
A fit human can produce somewhere between 150 and 300 watts continuously , with perhaps the occassional excursion to higher .
( In contrast , one horsepower is approximately 750 W. ) So , in a day , a person might be able to pump out 1-2 kWh , which on the wholesale electrical market might fetch a whopping $ 0.10 .
If the company is clever , they 'd store and release that power during peak demand , in which case they might get twice that .
Could you live on $ 0.10 a day ?
A homeless person could n't even buy enough food calories for that electrical output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alas, the economics of this are unlikely to pan out.
A fit human can produce somewhere between 150 and 300 watts continuously, with perhaps the occassional excursion to higher.
(In contrast, one horsepower is approximately 750 W.)  So, in a day, a person might be able to pump out 1-2 kWh, which on the wholesale electrical market might fetch a whopping $0.10.
If the company is clever, they'd store and release that power during peak demand, in which case they might get twice that.
Could you live on $0.10 a day?
A homeless person couldn't even buy enough food calories for that electrical output.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695617</id>
	<title>Re:Missed opportunity</title>
	<author>mrgiles</author>
	<datestamp>1247563260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Sir, it's pronounced <i>Beyonk</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Sir , it 's pronounced Beyonk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Sir, it's pronounced Beyonk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28703581</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Chabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247673240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wisdom\_brewing said pretty much everything I would, but I'll add a car analogy:</p><p>A Ferrari F430 is not a terribly efficient car, but if you use up a whole gallon of gasoline going to the store 2 miles away, that's inefficient, but still more efficient than pouring only a pint of gasoline on your driveway and lighting it with a match. Less consumption does not equal better efficiency.</p><p>Here's a rewording of my original statement, to counteract your sarcasm:<br>"Running BOINC on a computer <strong> <em>that would otherwise be</em> </strong> sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency. It may be consuming electricity, but at least then it's <em>doing</em> something."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wisdom \ _brewing said pretty much everything I would , but I 'll add a car analogy : A Ferrari F430 is not a terribly efficient car , but if you use up a whole gallon of gasoline going to the store 2 miles away , that 's inefficient , but still more efficient than pouring only a pint of gasoline on your driveway and lighting it with a match .
Less consumption does not equal better efficiency.Here 's a rewording of my original statement , to counteract your sarcasm : " Running BOINC on a computer that would otherwise be sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency .
It may be consuming electricity , but at least then it 's doing something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wisdom\_brewing said pretty much everything I would, but I'll add a car analogy:A Ferrari F430 is not a terribly efficient car, but if you use up a whole gallon of gasoline going to the store 2 miles away, that's inefficient, but still more efficient than pouring only a pint of gasoline on your driveway and lighting it with a match.
Less consumption does not equal better efficiency.Here's a rewording of my original statement, to counteract your sarcasm:"Running BOINC on a computer  that would otherwise be  sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency.
It may be consuming electricity, but at least then it's doing something.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695019</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony that climate models usually require super computers to run in a timely manner is not lost on me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony that climate models usually require super computers to run in a timely manner is not lost on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony that climate models usually require super computers to run in a timely manner is not lost on me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187</id>
	<title>Why is this being compared to top500?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1247604660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is NOT a supercomputer. This is a cluster, and a very slow cluster at that. It seems like people think that anything fast is a "supercomputer" and as techies, we ought to know better.</p><p>What makes a supercomputer "super" is its internode communication. You have extremely fast links so that, in theory, any node can access the memory from any other node as it would its own local memory. Now in reality there are some performance penalties, but still. Basically you really have created one large computer, rather than tons of small ones.</p><p>This is a cluster, which is as the name implies just a bunch of little computers networked in some fashion working on the same problem. That's great, but not the same thing. The nodes do not have high speed communication, some may even be on modems and only connected occasionally.</p><p>Now, why does this matter? Well it depends on the problem you are trying to solve. Some problems need very little communication. A good example would be cracking cryptography. You just divide up the keyspace among all your nodes. There's also very little data to send back and forth. You send you the problem, consisting of the encrypted message to the nodes, and then all the communication from this on is:</p><p>Node: Didn't find the key.<br>Controller: Ok try this range.<br>Node: Ok.</p><p>As such link speed of the cluster can be very slow. Well other problems still work in a clustered environment, but need higher link speeds like gig Ethernet. 3D rendering would be an example. All the nodes can act independent, they are just divided up on frames to render, or parts of a frame or whatever. However since the problem and results are much larger in this case, they need faster communication to make it practical. A modem won't cut it for transferring images that are 50MB each when you are rendering thousands.</p><p>However, there are other problems where there is heavy inter node communication. A particle simulation would be like this. Since what happens with one particle affects all others, nodes have to chat continuously. For this, you need a supercomputer. The bandwidth of links must be extremely high and the latency must be extremely low, or else processor power will be wasted just waiting on getting the data that is needed.</p><p>So just because something has a lot of CPUs and can crunch a lot of numbers, doesn't make it a supercomputer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is NOT a supercomputer .
This is a cluster , and a very slow cluster at that .
It seems like people think that anything fast is a " supercomputer " and as techies , we ought to know better.What makes a supercomputer " super " is its internode communication .
You have extremely fast links so that , in theory , any node can access the memory from any other node as it would its own local memory .
Now in reality there are some performance penalties , but still .
Basically you really have created one large computer , rather than tons of small ones.This is a cluster , which is as the name implies just a bunch of little computers networked in some fashion working on the same problem .
That 's great , but not the same thing .
The nodes do not have high speed communication , some may even be on modems and only connected occasionally.Now , why does this matter ?
Well it depends on the problem you are trying to solve .
Some problems need very little communication .
A good example would be cracking cryptography .
You just divide up the keyspace among all your nodes .
There 's also very little data to send back and forth .
You send you the problem , consisting of the encrypted message to the nodes , and then all the communication from this on is : Node : Did n't find the key.Controller : Ok try this range.Node : Ok.As such link speed of the cluster can be very slow .
Well other problems still work in a clustered environment , but need higher link speeds like gig Ethernet .
3D rendering would be an example .
All the nodes can act independent , they are just divided up on frames to render , or parts of a frame or whatever .
However since the problem and results are much larger in this case , they need faster communication to make it practical .
A modem wo n't cut it for transferring images that are 50MB each when you are rendering thousands.However , there are other problems where there is heavy inter node communication .
A particle simulation would be like this .
Since what happens with one particle affects all others , nodes have to chat continuously .
For this , you need a supercomputer .
The bandwidth of links must be extremely high and the latency must be extremely low , or else processor power will be wasted just waiting on getting the data that is needed.So just because something has a lot of CPUs and can crunch a lot of numbers , does n't make it a supercomputer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is NOT a supercomputer.
This is a cluster, and a very slow cluster at that.
It seems like people think that anything fast is a "supercomputer" and as techies, we ought to know better.What makes a supercomputer "super" is its internode communication.
You have extremely fast links so that, in theory, any node can access the memory from any other node as it would its own local memory.
Now in reality there are some performance penalties, but still.
Basically you really have created one large computer, rather than tons of small ones.This is a cluster, which is as the name implies just a bunch of little computers networked in some fashion working on the same problem.
That's great, but not the same thing.
The nodes do not have high speed communication, some may even be on modems and only connected occasionally.Now, why does this matter?
Well it depends on the problem you are trying to solve.
Some problems need very little communication.
A good example would be cracking cryptography.
You just divide up the keyspace among all your nodes.
There's also very little data to send back and forth.
You send you the problem, consisting of the encrypted message to the nodes, and then all the communication from this on is:Node: Didn't find the key.Controller: Ok try this range.Node: Ok.As such link speed of the cluster can be very slow.
Well other problems still work in a clustered environment, but need higher link speeds like gig Ethernet.
3D rendering would be an example.
All the nodes can act independent, they are just divided up on frames to render, or parts of a frame or whatever.
However since the problem and results are much larger in this case, they need faster communication to make it practical.
A modem won't cut it for transferring images that are 50MB each when you are rendering thousands.However, there are other problems where there is heavy inter node communication.
A particle simulation would be like this.
Since what happens with one particle affects all others, nodes have to chat continuously.
For this, you need a supercomputer.
The bandwidth of links must be extremely high and the latency must be extremely low, or else processor power will be wasted just waiting on getting the data that is needed.So just because something has a lot of CPUs and can crunch a lot of numbers, doesn't make it a supercomputer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1247602560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing. BOINC requires no CO2 to operate.</p><p>It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power, producing no CO2 (past initial construction).</p><p>Why does CO2 have to be the end-all-be-all of everything? Why not ask how much coal dust or mercury is now in the atmosphere thanks to the plants that power most of those computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing .
BOINC requires no CO2 to operate.It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power , producing no CO2 ( past initial construction ) .Why does CO2 have to be the end-all-be-all of everything ?
Why not ask how much coal dust or mercury is now in the atmosphere thanks to the plants that power most of those computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing.
BOINC requires no CO2 to operate.It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power, producing no CO2 (past initial construction).Why does CO2 have to be the end-all-be-all of everything?
Why not ask how much coal dust or mercury is now in the atmosphere thanks to the plants that power most of those computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695459</id>
	<title>Obligatory Calvin &amp; Hobbes</title>
	<author>andrewd18</author>
	<datestamp>1247562540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you know what they say...

Scientific progress goes BOINC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you know what they say.. . Scientific progress goes BOINC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you know what they say...

Scientific progress goes BOINC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697281</id>
	<title>Re:Missed opportunity</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1247570460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Grid volunteers do it in groups of 571,534"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Grid volunteers do it in groups of 571,534 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Grid volunteers do it in groups of 571,534"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695659</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>mlscdi</author>
	<datestamp>1247563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as long as one of your "applications" isn't Crysis</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as long as one of your " applications " is n't Crysis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as long as one of your "applications" isn't Crysis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695125</id>
	<title>Re:How cost effective is this really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You easily could, but you're not the one paying the (processing, at least) electric bills, and the huge cost is spread out over hundreds of thousands of contributors, so while it really uses a huge amount of electricity and money, the average user running it is only going to see a relatively small increase in cost of electricity, making it that much more likely that they'll contribute, whereas you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a way to get 68 million for any reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You easily could , but you 're not the one paying the ( processing , at least ) electric bills , and the huge cost is spread out over hundreds of thousands of contributors , so while it really uses a huge amount of electricity and money , the average user running it is only going to see a relatively small increase in cost of electricity , making it that much more likely that they 'll contribute , whereas you 'd be pretty hard pressed to find a way to get 68 million for any reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You easily could, but you're not the one paying the (processing, at least) electric bills, and the huge cost is spread out over hundreds of thousands of contributors, so while it really uses a huge amount of electricity and money, the average user running it is only going to see a relatively small increase in cost of electricity, making it that much more likely that they'll contribute, whereas you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a way to get 68 million for any reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699581</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOINC pretty much ensures the processor isn't idling, its using the processor constantly, which is drastically different than an idle state, but thanks for looking at it from a completely ignorant point of view.</p><p>My PC doing nothing uses less electricity than my PC running BOINC, please explain to me with that in mind how it 'improves efficiency' of what you are calling idle processors.  You can't, a processor running BOINC simply isn't idle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOINC pretty much ensures the processor is n't idling , its using the processor constantly , which is drastically different than an idle state , but thanks for looking at it from a completely ignorant point of view.My PC doing nothing uses less electricity than my PC running BOINC , please explain to me with that in mind how it 'improves efficiency ' of what you are calling idle processors .
You ca n't , a processor running BOINC simply is n't idle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOINC pretty much ensures the processor isn't idling, its using the processor constantly, which is drastically different than an idle state, but thanks for looking at it from a completely ignorant point of view.My PC doing nothing uses less electricity than my PC running BOINC, please explain to me with that in mind how it 'improves efficiency' of what you are calling idle processors.
You can't, a processor running BOINC simply isn't idle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695395</id>
	<title>Boinc Podcast on how it works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247562300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will have a podcast with the creator of Boinc out this Saturday at midnight (EDT) at http://rce-cast.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will have a podcast with the creator of Boinc out this Saturday at midnight ( EDT ) at http : //rce-cast.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will have a podcast with the creator of Boinc out this Saturday at midnight (EDT) at http://rce-cast.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700851</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can You Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can You Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can You Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694783</id>
	<title>Panties Stink!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Panties Stink!<br>They really, really stink!<br>Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,<br>Sometimes they're white or black or pink<br>Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace<br>Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains<br>But at the end of the day, it really makes you think<br>Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!</p><p>Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor<br>Your girlfriend- what a whore!<br>Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw<br>From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law<br>Brownish stains from daily wear<br>A gusset full of pubic hair<br>Just make sure your nose is ready<br>For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie<br>In your hand a pair of drawers<br>With a funky feminine discharge<br>Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink<br>cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Panties Stink ! They really , really stink ! Sometimes they 're red , sometimes they 're green,Sometimes they 're white or black or pinkSometimes they 're satin , sometimes they 're laceSometimes they 're cotton and soak up stainsBut at the end of the day , it really makes you thinkWooooooo-wheeeee !
Panties stink ! Sometimes they 're on the bathroom floorYour girlfriend- what a whore ! Sometimes they 're warm and wet and rawFrom beneath the skirt of your mother-in-lawBrownish stains from daily wearA gusset full of pubic hairJust make sure your nose is readyFor the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgieIn your hand a pair of drawersWith a funky feminine dischargeGive your nose a rest , fix yourself a drinkcause wooooooo-wheeeeeee !
panties stink !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Panties Stink!They really, really stink!Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,Sometimes they're white or black or pinkSometimes they're satin, sometimes they're laceSometimes they're cotton and soak up stainsBut at the end of the day, it really makes you thinkWooooooo-wheeeee!
Panties stink!Sometimes they're on the bathroom floorYour girlfriend- what a whore!Sometimes they're warm and wet and rawFrom beneath the skirt of your mother-in-lawBrownish stains from daily wearA gusset full of pubic hairJust make sure your nose is readyFor the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgieIn your hand a pair of drawersWith a funky feminine dischargeGive your nose a rest, fix yourself a drinkcause wooooooo-wheeeeeee!
panties stink!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695957</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be outdated in a year if they Dont use SSD Drives</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be outdated in a year if they Dont use SSD Drives</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be outdated in a year if they Dont use SSD Drives</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699395</id>
	<title>Re:How cost effective is this really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their claim that the cost is between $3 and $8 is in a *wiki page*. If you have better figures to share, then instead of ranting in slashdot, go ahead and share them in the wiki talk page, or in BOINC mailing list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their claim that the cost is between $ 3 and $ 8 is in a * wiki page * .
If you have better figures to share , then instead of ranting in slashdot , go ahead and share them in the wiki talk page , or in BOINC mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their claim that the cost is between $3 and $8 is in a *wiki page*.
If you have better figures to share, then instead of ranting in slashdot, go ahead and share them in the wiki talk page, or in BOINC mailing list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694923</id>
	<title>Considering a spherical cow: 140 tons/hour CO2</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1247603100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets say a typical computer running BOINC contributes 1 GFlop at 100W (1e2W).  So at 2e6 GFlops, tats 2e8W or 2e5 kW.</p><p>According to the energy department, we can assume that 1.4 pounds of CO2 per KWh, so that says BOINC is at ~3e5 pounds/hour of CO2, or about 140 tons/hour of CO2.</p><p>I get a very similar number if I back of the envelope what a coal plant should be based on ~500 tons/1 GW.</p><p><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2\_report/co2report.html" title="doe.gov">http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2\_report/co2report.html</a> [doe.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets say a typical computer running BOINC contributes 1 GFlop at 100W ( 1e2W ) .
So at 2e6 GFlops , tats 2e8W or 2e5 kW.According to the energy department , we can assume that 1.4 pounds of CO2 per KWh , so that says BOINC is at ~ 3e5 pounds/hour of CO2 , or about 140 tons/hour of CO2.I get a very similar number if I back of the envelope what a coal plant should be based on ~ 500 tons/1 GW.http : //www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2 \ _report/co2report.html [ doe.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets say a typical computer running BOINC contributes 1 GFlop at 100W (1e2W).
So at 2e6 GFlops, tats 2e8W or 2e5 kW.According to the energy department, we can assume that 1.4 pounds of CO2 per KWh, so that says BOINC is at ~3e5 pounds/hour of CO2, or about 140 tons/hour of CO2.I get a very similar number if I back of the envelope what a coal plant should be based on ~500 tons/1 GW.http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2\_report/co2report.html [doe.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695017</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has an energy to matter converter yet so no one is outputting carbon in any form.</p><p>Unless I'm wrong and I've been sleeping for too long and we now have 24th century Star Trek technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has an energy to matter converter yet so no one is outputting carbon in any form.Unless I 'm wrong and I 've been sleeping for too long and we now have 24th century Star Trek technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has an energy to matter converter yet so no one is outputting carbon in any form.Unless I'm wrong and I've been sleeping for too long and we now have 24th century Star Trek technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28707085</id>
	<title>Not really 2 PetaFLOP/s.</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
In order to understand how much work BOINC is really doing, you need to understand how that 2 PetaFLOP/s is calculated.  It is based upon the total amount of credit granted by all of the BOINC projects in existence.
<br>
<br>
Most projects grant credit by multiplying the run time of an application by some benchmark scores done by the application run time.  The benchmarks are small and fit easily into cache.  The applications tend to have a large memory footprint, and so end up spending a lot of processor time in cache misses.  So the number might be better understood as a theoretical max performance for non SIMD code.
<br>
<br>
An application that isn't hand optimized to minimize cache misses might typically spend 95\% of its time waiting on cache.
<br>
<br>
As far as I know only one BOINC project has actually counted the number of floating point operations it does and compared them to the BOINC benchmarks.  (Of course there are disagreements about what a floating point operation is.  Is a sin() one operation?  Is a floating point division one operation?  SETI@home counts each as one FLOP) The current (fairly well optimized SSE(2-4)) version of SETI@home does floating point operations at about 38\% of the benchmark rate.  It spends 62\% of its time waiting for memory transfers.  (Actually it's worse than that because most of those floating point operations are done 4 at a time.)
So the 632 TFLOP/s that is reported for SETI@home is actually about 240 TFLOP/s.
<br>
<br>
I'd be astonished if the other projects were as well optimized, given the number of people that have worked on the SETI@home code to speed it up.  Lets estimate the rest of them get 15\% of the benchmark rate.  That would bring BOINC's actual performance to around 550 TFLOP, rather than the 2049 TFLOP theoretical value.
<br>
<br>
As far as I am aware, folding at home also doesn't count flops, but also estimated the FLOP count of the application based on processor benchmarks, so the 5 TFLOP it claims is probably as much of an "exaggeration" as the 2 TFLOPs claimed for BOINC.
<br>
<br>
That doesn't make the projects any less useful.  You just need to take these claims with a large grain of salt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to understand how much work BOINC is really doing , you need to understand how that 2 PetaFLOP/s is calculated .
It is based upon the total amount of credit granted by all of the BOINC projects in existence .
Most projects grant credit by multiplying the run time of an application by some benchmark scores done by the application run time .
The benchmarks are small and fit easily into cache .
The applications tend to have a large memory footprint , and so end up spending a lot of processor time in cache misses .
So the number might be better understood as a theoretical max performance for non SIMD code .
An application that is n't hand optimized to minimize cache misses might typically spend 95 \ % of its time waiting on cache .
As far as I know only one BOINC project has actually counted the number of floating point operations it does and compared them to the BOINC benchmarks .
( Of course there are disagreements about what a floating point operation is .
Is a sin ( ) one operation ?
Is a floating point division one operation ?
SETI @ home counts each as one FLOP ) The current ( fairly well optimized SSE ( 2-4 ) ) version of SETI @ home does floating point operations at about 38 \ % of the benchmark rate .
It spends 62 \ % of its time waiting for memory transfers .
( Actually it 's worse than that because most of those floating point operations are done 4 at a time .
) So the 632 TFLOP/s that is reported for SETI @ home is actually about 240 TFLOP/s .
I 'd be astonished if the other projects were as well optimized , given the number of people that have worked on the SETI @ home code to speed it up .
Lets estimate the rest of them get 15 \ % of the benchmark rate .
That would bring BOINC 's actual performance to around 550 TFLOP , rather than the 2049 TFLOP theoretical value .
As far as I am aware , folding at home also does n't count flops , but also estimated the FLOP count of the application based on processor benchmarks , so the 5 TFLOP it claims is probably as much of an " exaggeration " as the 2 TFLOPs claimed for BOINC .
That does n't make the projects any less useful .
You just need to take these claims with a large grain of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In order to understand how much work BOINC is really doing, you need to understand how that 2 PetaFLOP/s is calculated.
It is based upon the total amount of credit granted by all of the BOINC projects in existence.
Most projects grant credit by multiplying the run time of an application by some benchmark scores done by the application run time.
The benchmarks are small and fit easily into cache.
The applications tend to have a large memory footprint, and so end up spending a lot of processor time in cache misses.
So the number might be better understood as a theoretical max performance for non SIMD code.
An application that isn't hand optimized to minimize cache misses might typically spend 95\% of its time waiting on cache.
As far as I know only one BOINC project has actually counted the number of floating point operations it does and compared them to the BOINC benchmarks.
(Of course there are disagreements about what a floating point operation is.
Is a sin() one operation?
Is a floating point division one operation?
SETI@home counts each as one FLOP) The current (fairly well optimized SSE(2-4)) version of SETI@home does floating point operations at about 38\% of the benchmark rate.
It spends 62\% of its time waiting for memory transfers.
(Actually it's worse than that because most of those floating point operations are done 4 at a time.
)
So the 632 TFLOP/s that is reported for SETI@home is actually about 240 TFLOP/s.
I'd be astonished if the other projects were as well optimized, given the number of people that have worked on the SETI@home code to speed it up.
Lets estimate the rest of them get 15\% of the benchmark rate.
That would bring BOINC's actual performance to around 550 TFLOP, rather than the 2049 TFLOP theoretical value.
As far as I am aware, folding at home also doesn't count flops, but also estimated the FLOP count of the application based on processor benchmarks, so the 5 TFLOP it claims is probably as much of an "exaggeration" as the 2 TFLOPs claimed for BOINC.
That doesn't make the projects any less useful.
You just need to take these claims with a large grain of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28698865</id>
	<title>How to calculate the IRS deduction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figure if 80\% of the use of my computer is being donated to a non-profit organization of any kind, I should be able to write off 80\% of the cost of the PC, energy used to power it, etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure if 80 \ % of the use of my computer is being donated to a non-profit organization of any kind , I should be able to write off 80 \ % of the cost of the PC , energy used to power it , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure if 80\% of the use of my computer is being donated to a non-profit organization of any kind, I should be able to write off 80\% of the cost of the PC, energy used to power it, etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695605</id>
	<title>Re:Still far behind...</title>
	<author>Okomokochoko</author>
	<datestamp>1247563200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Folding@home nVidia/ATI GPU clients are even more important: <a href="http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">F@H Client Statistics</a> [stanford.edu]. By themselves, they account for roughly 3/4 of the project's FLOPS count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Folding @ home nVidia/ATI GPU clients are even more important : F @ H Client Statistics [ stanford.edu ] .
By themselves , they account for roughly 3/4 of the project 's FLOPS count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Folding@home nVidia/ATI GPU clients are even more important: F@H Client Statistics [stanford.edu].
By themselves, they account for roughly 3/4 of the project's FLOPS count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28707155</id>
	<title>Re:Grid computing != supercomputing</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247689980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am unaware of any BOINC project that actually does make such a comparison.  People unaffiliated with the projects often do, however.
<br>
<br>
And if you actually find someone from a project that does make a claim of their total floating point performance, please ask them how they calculated the number of floating point calculations their application does.  Chances are that their number is high by a factor of 10.  (See my post elsewhere in this discussion titled "Not really 2 PetaFLOP/s")</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am unaware of any BOINC project that actually does make such a comparison .
People unaffiliated with the projects often do , however .
And if you actually find someone from a project that does make a claim of their total floating point performance , please ask them how they calculated the number of floating point calculations their application does .
Chances are that their number is high by a factor of 10 .
( See my post elsewhere in this discussion titled " Not really 2 PetaFLOP/s " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am unaware of any BOINC project that actually does make such a comparison.
People unaffiliated with the projects often do, however.
And if you actually find someone from a project that does make a claim of their total floating point performance, please ask them how they calculated the number of floating point calculations their application does.
Chances are that their number is high by a factor of 10.
(See my post elsewhere in this discussion titled "Not really 2 PetaFLOP/s")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694849</id>
	<title>Botnets</title>
	<author>bigredradio</author>
	<datestamp>1247602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what the computing power is of some of the larger botnets. They are not likely to be listed in the "Top500".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the computing power is of some of the larger botnets .
They are not likely to be listed in the " Top500 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the computing power is of some of the larger botnets.
They are not likely to be listed in the "Top500".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227</id>
	<title>Homeless/Unemployed People On Treadmills...</title>
	<author>Xin Jing</author>
	<datestamp>1247604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there's an untapped resource that's wide open for a non-profit organization to utilize that puts homeless or unemployed people to work powering computers.

Imagine a company that sets up row after row of electric generating treadmills that homeless or unemployed people are given a cursory medical examination (blood pressure and heart rate), sign a waiver and generate electricity on treadmills that power computers.  Like donating blood, the program participants can return again and again and like a comminuty food bank could achieve electricity generating goals to earn points that qualify them for food and clothing items that are donated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's an untapped resource that 's wide open for a non-profit organization to utilize that puts homeless or unemployed people to work powering computers .
Imagine a company that sets up row after row of electric generating treadmills that homeless or unemployed people are given a cursory medical examination ( blood pressure and heart rate ) , sign a waiver and generate electricity on treadmills that power computers .
Like donating blood , the program participants can return again and again and like a comminuty food bank could achieve electricity generating goals to earn points that qualify them for food and clothing items that are donated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's an untapped resource that's wide open for a non-profit organization to utilize that puts homeless or unemployed people to work powering computers.
Imagine a company that sets up row after row of electric generating treadmills that homeless or unemployed people are given a cursory medical examination (blood pressure and heart rate), sign a waiver and generate electricity on treadmills that power computers.
Like donating blood, the program participants can return again and again and like a comminuty food bank could achieve electricity generating goals to earn points that qualify them for food and clothing items that are donated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694875</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1247602860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>half a million computers, times a couple of hundred watts would gives ~10MW which is about 4 blue whales or 3 diesel locomotives <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders\_of\_magnitude\_(power)#megawatt\_.28106\_watts.29" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders\_of\_magnitude\_(power)#megawatt\_.28106\_watts.29</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>half a million computers , times a couple of hundred watts would gives ~ 10MW which is about 4 blue whales or 3 diesel locomotives http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders \ _of \ _magnitude \ _ ( power ) # megawatt \ _.28106 \ _watts.29 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>half a million computers, times a couple of hundred watts would gives ~10MW which is about 4 blue whales or 3 diesel locomotives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders\_of\_magnitude\_(power)#megawatt\_.28106\_watts.29 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695161</id>
	<title>Re:How cost effective is this really?</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1247604480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people are more likely to contribute to BOINC and spend 10$/month extra on electricity and cooling than actually pay 10$/month to contribute to research. I bet a lot of people who contribute to BOINC didn't even think about the higher electricity bill.</p><p>Your arguments are all valid, it's just that from a marketing point of view I think BOINC has an advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are more likely to contribute to BOINC and spend 10 $ /month extra on electricity and cooling than actually pay 10 $ /month to contribute to research .
I bet a lot of people who contribute to BOINC did n't even think about the higher electricity bill.Your arguments are all valid , it 's just that from a marketing point of view I think BOINC has an advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people are more likely to contribute to BOINC and spend 10$/month extra on electricity and cooling than actually pay 10$/month to contribute to research.
I bet a lot of people who contribute to BOINC didn't even think about the higher electricity bill.Your arguments are all valid, it's just that from a marketing point of view I think BOINC has an advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699657</id>
	<title>Shameless plug for team SETI.USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For anyone interested in starting a Boinc project, be sure to check out the team SETI.USA.  I won't post a link for obvious reasons, but I think the team webpage has already been<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ed.  I know I can't get to it.  Anyways, not all team members are from the US.  All are welcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone interested in starting a Boinc project , be sure to check out the team SETI.USA .
I wo n't post a link for obvious reasons , but I think the team webpage has already been /.ed .
I know I ca n't get to it .
Anyways , not all team members are from the US .
All are welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone interested in starting a Boinc project, be sure to check out the team SETI.USA.
I won't post a link for obvious reasons, but I think the team webpage has already been /.ed.
I know I can't get to it.
Anyways, not all team members are from the US.
All are welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694955</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1247603340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power, producing no CO2 (past initial construction).</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe for solar, but in both cases that initial construction is not an insignificant caveat, and in the case of Nuclear, cleanup and waste storage bears significant costs.</p><p>CO2 is the end-all-be-all because the science is well established and reasonably convincing. Also, most things that generate coal dust or Mercury tend to generate CO2 as a byproduct.</p><p>Personally, I tend to just straight out how much something costs, since any cost fairly accurately reflects the energy input, and there isn't really any properly clean energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power , producing no CO2 ( past initial construction ) .Maybe for solar , but in both cases that initial construction is not an insignificant caveat , and in the case of Nuclear , cleanup and waste storage bears significant costs.CO2 is the end-all-be-all because the science is well established and reasonably convincing .
Also , most things that generate coal dust or Mercury tend to generate CO2 as a byproduct.Personally , I tend to just straight out how much something costs , since any cost fairly accurately reflects the energy input , and there is n't really any properly clean energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power, producing no CO2 (past initial construction).Maybe for solar, but in both cases that initial construction is not an insignificant caveat, and in the case of Nuclear, cleanup and waste storage bears significant costs.CO2 is the end-all-be-all because the science is well established and reasonably convincing.
Also, most things that generate coal dust or Mercury tend to generate CO2 as a byproduct.Personally, I tend to just straight out how much something costs, since any cost fairly accurately reflects the energy input, and there isn't really any properly clean energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029</id>
	<title>How cost effective is this really?</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1247603880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOINC uses 571,534 computers. The indirect cost of supporting and maintaing the software, hardware, etc is borne by the volunteers but it still has to be paid.</p><p>Additionally, they claim it uses between $3 and $8 a month extra in energy in the US*, and double to triple that in Europe.</p><p>* This number is poorly derived. They based it on an 'average' electrical rate in the US, e.g. it looks like they added up all the rates and divided by 50. The average American however pays more than the average rate, because the majority live in the dense states where electricity costs most. Florida, New York, Caifornia, etc vs the relatively tiny populations in North Dakota where electricity is cheap.</p><p>Further, I'm confident that the skew is weighted towards broadband users, which further skews things away from rural North Dakota where electricity is cheap.</p><p>Further, they fail to account the extra cooling required as a result of generating more heat. Granted in -some- places where you need more heat this will offset your heating bill in your favor, but again, most people are clustered in areas that require more cooling than heating.</p><p>So, bottom line, I'd say their assessment of electrical costs is on the low side.</p><p>For the sake of argument, lets say it averaged out to 10$/mo. (Including europe.) What kind of computing power could you build and run with $5.7M/month.</p><p>Especially when you have the freedom to install it where you want, and factoring in that industrial electricity is cheaper than residential. With a $68M/year budget, could you beat boinc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOINC uses 571,534 computers .
The indirect cost of supporting and maintaing the software , hardware , etc is borne by the volunteers but it still has to be paid.Additionally , they claim it uses between $ 3 and $ 8 a month extra in energy in the US * , and double to triple that in Europe .
* This number is poorly derived .
They based it on an 'average ' electrical rate in the US , e.g .
it looks like they added up all the rates and divided by 50 .
The average American however pays more than the average rate , because the majority live in the dense states where electricity costs most .
Florida , New York , Caifornia , etc vs the relatively tiny populations in North Dakota where electricity is cheap.Further , I 'm confident that the skew is weighted towards broadband users , which further skews things away from rural North Dakota where electricity is cheap.Further , they fail to account the extra cooling required as a result of generating more heat .
Granted in -some- places where you need more heat this will offset your heating bill in your favor , but again , most people are clustered in areas that require more cooling than heating.So , bottom line , I 'd say their assessment of electrical costs is on the low side.For the sake of argument , lets say it averaged out to 10 $ /mo .
( Including europe .
) What kind of computing power could you build and run with $ 5.7M/month.Especially when you have the freedom to install it where you want , and factoring in that industrial electricity is cheaper than residential .
With a $ 68M/year budget , could you beat boinc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOINC uses 571,534 computers.
The indirect cost of supporting and maintaing the software, hardware, etc is borne by the volunteers but it still has to be paid.Additionally, they claim it uses between $3 and $8 a month extra in energy in the US*, and double to triple that in Europe.
* This number is poorly derived.
They based it on an 'average' electrical rate in the US, e.g.
it looks like they added up all the rates and divided by 50.
The average American however pays more than the average rate, because the majority live in the dense states where electricity costs most.
Florida, New York, Caifornia, etc vs the relatively tiny populations in North Dakota where electricity is cheap.Further, I'm confident that the skew is weighted towards broadband users, which further skews things away from rural North Dakota where electricity is cheap.Further, they fail to account the extra cooling required as a result of generating more heat.
Granted in -some- places where you need more heat this will offset your heating bill in your favor, but again, most people are clustered in areas that require more cooling than heating.So, bottom line, I'd say their assessment of electrical costs is on the low side.For the sake of argument, lets say it averaged out to 10$/mo.
(Including europe.
) What kind of computing power could you build and run with $5.7M/month.Especially when you have the freedom to install it where you want, and factoring in that industrial electricity is cheaper than residential.
With a $68M/year budget, could you beat boinc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you mean OSX with smug set to maximum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean OSX with smug set to maximum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean OSX with smug set to maximum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694735</id>
	<title>That'll do Bionic</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1247602140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That'll do</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll do</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll do</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695645</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.</p><p>Now all I need is for every BOINC user to download the <em>HertzaHaeon plays Crysis</em> project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.Now all I need is for every BOINC user to download the HertzaHaeon plays Crysis project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.Now all I need is for every BOINC user to download the HertzaHaeon plays Crysis project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725</id>
	<title>Missed opportunity</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247602080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could make T-shirts saying "Computer scientists BOINC faster", but I not sure that sends the right message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could make T-shirts saying " Computer scientists BOINC faster " , but I not sure that sends the right message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could make T-shirts saying "Computer scientists BOINC faster", but I not sure that sends the right message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694823</id>
	<title>Still far behind...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Folding@home</a> [wikipedia.org], which has passed 5 petaflops on February. Note that Folding is a single project, while the Petaflop measurement for BOINC are the aggregate total for that platform, which runs many independent and often unrelated projects.</p><p>Getting that thing bundled on PS3 was brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folding @ home [ wikipedia.org ] , which has passed 5 petaflops on February .
Note that Folding is a single project , while the Petaflop measurement for BOINC are the aggregate total for that platform , which runs many independent and often unrelated projects.Getting that thing bundled on PS3 was brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folding@home [wikipedia.org], which has passed 5 petaflops on February.
Note that Folding is a single project, while the Petaflop measurement for BOINC are the aggregate total for that platform, which runs many independent and often unrelated projects.Getting that thing bundled on PS3 was brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697365</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this being compared to top500?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newsflash: most of the 'supercomputers' in the top500 nowadays are just clusters with a whole lot of CPUs and fast interconnects.</p><p>The times of single system image computers using massive amounts of parallel CPUs have gone and past. It's 100x times cheaper to link up nodes using low latency interconnects like Infiniband and use smart interprocess communication and shared memory. "Supercomputer" is just a marketing term.</p><p>Anyone can build a Roadrunner just as long as you have a couple of 100 million laying around, it's just a matter of buying a whole lot of machines, cables and switches. Nothing super duper special about it. Roadrunner actually cheats by using vector processors to achieve that Petaflop, which means to even utilize all of that performance is only going to be achieved with very specific code and very specific simulations. But that's a whole other story.</p><p>I agree BOINC is no supercomputer, but neither is Roadrunner. Roadrunner just has more bandwith, faster connections and lower latency to it's CPUs and memory.</p><p>If you could upgrade every BOINC user to fully nonblocking 40 Gbps QDR Infiniband internet connections, you can run circles around Roadrunner as if it were nothing but a Playstation 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsflash : most of the 'supercomputers ' in the top500 nowadays are just clusters with a whole lot of CPUs and fast interconnects.The times of single system image computers using massive amounts of parallel CPUs have gone and past .
It 's 100x times cheaper to link up nodes using low latency interconnects like Infiniband and use smart interprocess communication and shared memory .
" Supercomputer " is just a marketing term.Anyone can build a Roadrunner just as long as you have a couple of 100 million laying around , it 's just a matter of buying a whole lot of machines , cables and switches .
Nothing super duper special about it .
Roadrunner actually cheats by using vector processors to achieve that Petaflop , which means to even utilize all of that performance is only going to be achieved with very specific code and very specific simulations .
But that 's a whole other story.I agree BOINC is no supercomputer , but neither is Roadrunner .
Roadrunner just has more bandwith , faster connections and lower latency to it 's CPUs and memory.If you could upgrade every BOINC user to fully nonblocking 40 Gbps QDR Infiniband internet connections , you can run circles around Roadrunner as if it were nothing but a Playstation 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsflash: most of the 'supercomputers' in the top500 nowadays are just clusters with a whole lot of CPUs and fast interconnects.The times of single system image computers using massive amounts of parallel CPUs have gone and past.
It's 100x times cheaper to link up nodes using low latency interconnects like Infiniband and use smart interprocess communication and shared memory.
"Supercomputer" is just a marketing term.Anyone can build a Roadrunner just as long as you have a couple of 100 million laying around, it's just a matter of buying a whole lot of machines, cables and switches.
Nothing super duper special about it.
Roadrunner actually cheats by using vector processors to achieve that Petaflop, which means to even utilize all of that performance is only going to be achieved with very specific code and very specific simulations.
But that's a whole other story.I agree BOINC is no supercomputer, but neither is Roadrunner.
Roadrunner just has more bandwith, faster connections and lower latency to it's CPUs and memory.If you could upgrade every BOINC user to fully nonblocking 40 Gbps QDR Infiniband internet connections, you can run circles around Roadrunner as if it were nothing but a Playstation 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694837</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known, it should be possible to calculate...</p></div><p>That only counts CPU usage.  It doesn't count I/O, which would at least include memory I/O, disk I/O, network I/O.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known , it should be possible to calculate...That only counts CPU usage .
It does n't count I/O , which would at least include memory I/O , disk I/O , network I/O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they know what CPUs are running on every BOINC client and the thermal power of them are generally known, it should be possible to calculate...That only counts CPU usage.
It doesn't count I/O, which would at least include memory I/O, disk I/O, network I/O.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697109</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1247569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.</p></div><p>On windows vista?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.On windows vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean Crysis with graphics set to maximum.On windows vista?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695091</id>
	<title>Grid computing != supercomputing</title>
	<author>SpaFF</author>
	<datestamp>1247604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>According to last month's Top500 list of supercomputers, BOINC's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer, RoadRunner, by more than a factor of two (with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack)</i></p><p>Sigh...why do these projects (BOINC, *@home, etc.) insist on comparing their performance to superpercomputers on the TOP500 list?  Of course BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack.  If it was, the performance wouldn't come close to anything at the top of the TOP500 list.  A bunch of workstations running a grid client and talking to each other over the internet is never going to have the same type of message passing bandwidth as a supercomputer using something like locally connected infiniband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to last month 's Top500 list of supercomputers , BOINC 's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer , RoadRunner , by more than a factor of two ( with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack ) Sigh...why do these projects ( BOINC , * @ home , etc .
) insist on comparing their performance to superpercomputers on the TOP500 list ?
Of course BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack .
If it was , the performance would n't come close to anything at the top of the TOP500 list .
A bunch of workstations running a grid client and talking to each other over the internet is never going to have the same type of message passing bandwidth as a supercomputer using something like locally connected infiniband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to last month's Top500 list of supercomputers, BOINC's performance is now beating that of the fastest supercomputer, RoadRunner, by more than a factor of two (with the caveat that BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack)Sigh...why do these projects (BOINC, *@home, etc.
) insist on comparing their performance to superpercomputers on the TOP500 list?
Of course BOINC has not been benchmarked on Linpack.
If it was, the performance wouldn't come close to anything at the top of the TOP500 list.
A bunch of workstations running a grid client and talking to each other over the internet is never going to have the same type of message passing bandwidth as a supercomputer using something like locally connected infiniband.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695013</id>
	<title>Re:Missed opportunity</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1247603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We could make T-shirts saying "Computer scientists BOINC faster", but I not sure that sends the right message.</p></div><p>Most women who've slept with computer scientists would agree that they are pretty fast<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could make T-shirts saying " Computer scientists BOINC faster " , but I not sure that sends the right message.Most women who 've slept with computer scientists would agree that they are pretty fast ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could make T-shirts saying "Computer scientists BOINC faster", but I not sure that sends the right message.Most women who've slept with computer scientists would agree that they are pretty fast ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28702951</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247669760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also worth noting that the models we needed to develop in order to understand and predict the effects of greenhouse gasses and climate change -- were built on supercomputers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also worth noting that the models we needed to develop in order to understand and predict the effects of greenhouse gasses and climate change -- were built on supercomputers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also worth noting that the models we needed to develop in order to understand and predict the effects of greenhouse gasses and climate change -- were built on supercomputers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695551</id>
	<title>82\% solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247562960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strangely enough 410 of the supercomputers listed in the top500, or 82\% are of architecture type "cluster".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely enough 410 of the supercomputers listed in the top500 , or 82 \ % are of architecture type " cluster " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strangely enough 410 of the supercomputers listed in the top500, or 82\% are of architecture type "cluster".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694939</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you meant Ubuntu with Firefox playing a flash video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you meant Ubuntu with Firefox playing a flash video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you meant Ubuntu with Firefox playing a flash video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696561</id>
	<title>Re:Homeless/Unemployed People On Treadmills...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll get back to you soon on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll get back to you soon on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll get back to you soon on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695157</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many Libraries of Congress will 4 blue whales power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many Libraries of Congress will 4 blue whales power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many Libraries of Congress will 4 blue whales power?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOINC finally has enough computing power to handle Vista Ultimate and a few applications!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOINC finally has enough computing power to handle Vista Ultimate and a few applications !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOINC finally has enough computing power to handle Vista Ultimate and a few applications!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694859</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Chabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can guarantee that several orders of magnitude more kWh are consumed by computers that are needlessly on and idle.</p><p>Running BOINC on a computer that's sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency. It may be consuming electricity, but at least then it's <em>doing</em> something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can guarantee that several orders of magnitude more kWh are consumed by computers that are needlessly on and idle.Running BOINC on a computer that 's sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency .
It may be consuming electricity , but at least then it 's doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can guarantee that several orders of magnitude more kWh are consumed by computers that are needlessly on and idle.Running BOINC on a computer that's sitting idle helps improve its energy efficiency.
It may be consuming electricity, but at least then it's doing something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695727</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>mhaskell</author>
	<datestamp>1247563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I run the Linpack HPL here at the lab, once with two clusters (one 228 nodes 4cpus x 4cores each x 4 float ops per cycle, and one 1152 node cluster of the same AMD configuration) we hit 1.069 MegaWatts and I started peeling the paint off of a huge transformer in the basement.  I had to do one at a time.  Linpack is a power pig with double precision floating point if your cpu/thread/mpi balance is correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I run the Linpack HPL here at the lab , once with two clusters ( one 228 nodes 4cpus x 4cores each x 4 float ops per cycle , and one 1152 node cluster of the same AMD configuration ) we hit 1.069 MegaWatts and I started peeling the paint off of a huge transformer in the basement .
I had to do one at a time .
Linpack is a power pig with double precision floating point if your cpu/thread/mpi balance is correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I run the Linpack HPL here at the lab, once with two clusters (one 228 nodes 4cpus x 4cores each x 4 float ops per cycle, and one 1152 node cluster of the same AMD configuration) we hit 1.069 MegaWatts and I started peeling the paint off of a huge transformer in the basement.
I had to do one at a time.
Linpack is a power pig with double precision floating point if your cpu/thread/mpi balance is correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28702891</id>
	<title>Flop/s?!!</title>
	<author>declain</author>
	<datestamp>1247669460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly is Flop/s?
It's FLOPS. FLoating point Operations Per Second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is Flop/s ?
It 's FLOPS .
FLoating point Operations Per Second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is Flop/s?
It's FLOPS.
FLoating point Operations Per Second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695105</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1247604240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once that's done, we can do a comparative analysis of CO2 of all the machines machines running WoW (factoring in the increased power draw of a machine with a higher end video card, plus increased disk &amp; memory I/O compared to a machine running BOINC). I'd be willing to be the BOINC 24x7x365 number works out to be smaller, or at least on par with a WoW machine going 4 hours a night several times a week.</p><p>Waste is, and will always be, a relative term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once that 's done , we can do a comparative analysis of CO2 of all the machines machines running WoW ( factoring in the increased power draw of a machine with a higher end video card , plus increased disk &amp; memory I/O compared to a machine running BOINC ) .
I 'd be willing to be the BOINC 24x7x365 number works out to be smaller , or at least on par with a WoW machine going 4 hours a night several times a week.Waste is , and will always be , a relative term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once that's done, we can do a comparative analysis of CO2 of all the machines machines running WoW (factoring in the increased power draw of a machine with a higher end video card, plus increased disk &amp; memory I/O compared to a machine running BOINC).
I'd be willing to be the BOINC 24x7x365 number works out to be smaller, or at least on par with a WoW machine going 4 hours a night several times a week.Waste is, and will always be, a relative term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694745</id>
	<title>Emacs....</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1247602140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>anyone??  =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone ? ?
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone??
=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695693</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what BOINC's contribution to CO2 outpu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247563560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are the emissions really because of BOINC? I thought part of their selling point was that it uses computing power that your computer was going to waste on a screen-saver anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the emissions really because of BOINC ?
I thought part of their selling point was that it uses computing power that your computer was going to waste on a screen-saver anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the emissions really because of BOINC?
I thought part of their selling point was that it uses computing power that your computer was going to waste on a screen-saver anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695839</id>
	<title>Re:Homeless/Unemployed People On Treadmills...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now there is a modest proposal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now there is a modest proposal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now there is a modest proposal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28707155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28703581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28702951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1743230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695109
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695645
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28700081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28696561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28697281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28703581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28699847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28702951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28707155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1743230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28694823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1743230.28695605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
