<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_0053207</id>
	<title>The Economics of Federal Cloud Computing Analyzed</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255972260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jg21 writes <i>"With the federal government about to spend $20B on IT infrastructure, this highly analytical article by two Booz Allen Hamilton associates makes it clear that cloud computing has now received full executive backing and offers <a href="http://govcloud.ulitzer.com/node/1147473">clear opportunities for agencies to significantly reduce their growing expenditures</a> for data centers and IT hardware. From the article: 'A few agencies are already moving quickly to explore cloud computing solutions and are even redirecting existing funds to begin implementations... Agencies should identify the aspects of their current IT workload that can be transitioned to the cloud in the near term to yield "early wins" to help build momentum and support for the migration to cloud computing.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jg21 writes " With the federal government about to spend $ 20B on IT infrastructure , this highly analytical article by two Booz Allen Hamilton associates makes it clear that cloud computing has now received full executive backing and offers clear opportunities for agencies to significantly reduce their growing expenditures for data centers and IT hardware .
From the article : 'A few agencies are already moving quickly to explore cloud computing solutions and are even redirecting existing funds to begin implementations... Agencies should identify the aspects of their current IT workload that can be transitioned to the cloud in the near term to yield " early wins " to help build momentum and support for the migration to cloud computing .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jg21 writes "With the federal government about to spend $20B on IT infrastructure, this highly analytical article by two Booz Allen Hamilton associates makes it clear that cloud computing has now received full executive backing and offers clear opportunities for agencies to significantly reduce their growing expenditures for data centers and IT hardware.
From the article: 'A few agencies are already moving quickly to explore cloud computing solutions and are even redirecting existing funds to begin implementations... Agencies should identify the aspects of their current IT workload that can be transitioned to the cloud in the near term to yield "early wins" to help build momentum and support for the migration to cloud computing.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335</id>
	<title>Just typical</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1255889700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These government types always have their heads in the clouds...</htmltext>
<tokenext>These government types always have their heads in the clouds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These government types always have their heads in the clouds...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795599</id>
	<title>Re:Economies of Scale</title>
	<author>EvilTwinSkippy</author>
	<datestamp>1255973280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of "economy of scale" is there to throwing out working systems and replacing them?<br><br>Oh right... this is management types we are talking about...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of " economy of scale " is there to throwing out working systems and replacing them ? Oh right... this is management types we are talking about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of "economy of scale" is there to throwing out working systems and replacing them?Oh right... this is management types we are talking about...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792673</id>
	<title>Server Utilization</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1255960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read through this article server utilization is the most important factor driving better economics for the cloud :</p><p>"<i>Our analysis assumes an average utilization rate of 12 percent of available CPU capacity in the SQ environment and 60 percent in the virtualized cloud scenarios.</i>"</p><p>(SQ means status quo, i.e., non-cloud.)  This factor of 5 improvement in average utilization drives the overall cost savings and they are assuming a cloud overhead of about 45\%. (I.e., if you look that their numbers, they assume that cloud CPU cycles cost 45\% more than local cycles, but the efficiency is 5 times higher, for a overall cost reduction of a factor of 3.4 in the "public" cloud case, which has the largest savings.)</p><p>A factor of 5 in server utilization is huge; the question is, is it realistic ? Note that 60\% usage corresponds to 100\% usage for 14 hours per day, 7 days a week, or 20 hours of full usage for 5 days per week, and so would be quite high for a government web site.  If government web servers dominate the cloud computing, the savings are likely not to be as large as this study supposes, because no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.</p><p>If you think about it, to be economically effective cloud computing (in the big picture) <b>has</b> to be about saving money by increasing average server utilization (averaged over all users). Cloud servers are not free, and require resources to service and maintain, and clouds have overhead. If some service is barely loading a single server, sure, I can see it being cheaper in the cloud. If servers are maxxed out almost all of the time, I bet that the cloud won't save much money. If the aggregate use is highly time variable, the cloud will not save as much money as a simple calculation would indicate, as the cloud will have servers sitting idle during off hours. For this particular article, its hard to say more as they don't reveal their actual data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read through this article server utilization is the most important factor driving better economics for the cloud : " Our analysis assumes an average utilization rate of 12 percent of available CPU capacity in the SQ environment and 60 percent in the virtualized cloud scenarios .
" ( SQ means status quo , i.e. , non-cloud .
) This factor of 5 improvement in average utilization drives the overall cost savings and they are assuming a cloud overhead of about 45 \ % .
( I.e. , if you look that their numbers , they assume that cloud CPU cycles cost 45 \ % more than local cycles , but the efficiency is 5 times higher , for a overall cost reduction of a factor of 3.4 in the " public " cloud case , which has the largest savings .
) A factor of 5 in server utilization is huge ; the question is , is it realistic ?
Note that 60 \ % usage corresponds to 100 \ % usage for 14 hours per day , 7 days a week , or 20 hours of full usage for 5 days per week , and so would be quite high for a government web site .
If government web servers dominate the cloud computing , the savings are likely not to be as large as this study supposes , because no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.If you think about it , to be economically effective cloud computing ( in the big picture ) has to be about saving money by increasing average server utilization ( averaged over all users ) .
Cloud servers are not free , and require resources to service and maintain , and clouds have overhead .
If some service is barely loading a single server , sure , I can see it being cheaper in the cloud .
If servers are maxxed out almost all of the time , I bet that the cloud wo n't save much money .
If the aggregate use is highly time variable , the cloud will not save as much money as a simple calculation would indicate , as the cloud will have servers sitting idle during off hours .
For this particular article , its hard to say more as they do n't reveal their actual data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read through this article server utilization is the most important factor driving better economics for the cloud :"Our analysis assumes an average utilization rate of 12 percent of available CPU capacity in the SQ environment and 60 percent in the virtualized cloud scenarios.
"(SQ means status quo, i.e., non-cloud.
)  This factor of 5 improvement in average utilization drives the overall cost savings and they are assuming a cloud overhead of about 45\%.
(I.e., if you look that their numbers, they assume that cloud CPU cycles cost 45\% more than local cycles, but the efficiency is 5 times higher, for a overall cost reduction of a factor of 3.4 in the "public" cloud case, which has the largest savings.
)A factor of 5 in server utilization is huge; the question is, is it realistic ?
Note that 60\% usage corresponds to 100\% usage for 14 hours per day, 7 days a week, or 20 hours of full usage for 5 days per week, and so would be quite high for a government web site.
If government web servers dominate the cloud computing, the savings are likely not to be as large as this study supposes, because no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.If you think about it, to be economically effective cloud computing (in the big picture) has to be about saving money by increasing average server utilization (averaged over all users).
Cloud servers are not free, and require resources to service and maintain, and clouds have overhead.
If some service is barely loading a single server, sure, I can see it being cheaper in the cloud.
If servers are maxxed out almost all of the time, I bet that the cloud won't save much money.
If the aggregate use is highly time variable, the cloud will not save as much money as a simple calculation would indicate, as the cloud will have servers sitting idle during off hours.
For this particular article, its hard to say more as they don't reveal their actual data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29798115</id>
	<title>Saving money is not cost-effective</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1255982940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for the government and there are two issues there. One is that we already have 3 initiatives in my 110,000 employee Department to consolidate into data centers. Unfortunately, these directives come from three different levels and mandate consolidation at 3 different centers (to be built). <br> <br>
That is the second issue. Saving money is not cost-effective in the Federal Government. Despite what they teach in civics class about the separation of powers, Congress approves each Department's budget along with line items for particular Agencies and Programs. They have their fingers dug deep into the process and if you can build a data center named for a congresscritter, then you will get funding for it whether it is ever used or not. In addition, you will get funding for the job you're actually supposed to perform so it is cost-effective for the Agency to pander to the politician.<br> <br>

OTOH, if you save money, it is merely removed from next year's budget since you obviously didn't need it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for the government and there are two issues there .
One is that we already have 3 initiatives in my 110,000 employee Department to consolidate into data centers .
Unfortunately , these directives come from three different levels and mandate consolidation at 3 different centers ( to be built ) .
That is the second issue .
Saving money is not cost-effective in the Federal Government .
Despite what they teach in civics class about the separation of powers , Congress approves each Department 's budget along with line items for particular Agencies and Programs .
They have their fingers dug deep into the process and if you can build a data center named for a congresscritter , then you will get funding for it whether it is ever used or not .
In addition , you will get funding for the job you 're actually supposed to perform so it is cost-effective for the Agency to pander to the politician .
OTOH , if you save money , it is merely removed from next year 's budget since you obviously did n't need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for the government and there are two issues there.
One is that we already have 3 initiatives in my 110,000 employee Department to consolidate into data centers.
Unfortunately, these directives come from three different levels and mandate consolidation at 3 different centers (to be built).
That is the second issue.
Saving money is not cost-effective in the Federal Government.
Despite what they teach in civics class about the separation of powers, Congress approves each Department's budget along with line items for particular Agencies and Programs.
They have their fingers dug deep into the process and if you can build a data center named for a congresscritter, then you will get funding for it whether it is ever used or not.
In addition, you will get funding for the job you're actually supposed to perform so it is cost-effective for the Agency to pander to the politician.
OTOH, if you save money, it is merely removed from next year's budget since you obviously didn't need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790553</id>
	<title>Oh no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255892040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be a feeding trough boondoggle for the big name, connected IT consulting companies. it will take forever, involve massive, cost overruns, and never work right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be a feeding trough boondoggle for the big name , connected IT consulting companies .
it will take forever , involve massive , cost overruns , and never work right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be a feeding trough boondoggle for the big name, connected IT consulting companies.
it will take forever, involve massive, cost overruns, and never work right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791189</id>
	<title>Re:Ask the experts: what is cloud computing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255943700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud Computing = Time-sharing. I might have heard that written on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. originally...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud Computing = Time-sharing .
I might have heard that written on / .
originally.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud Computing = Time-sharing.
I might have heard that written on /.
originally...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795185</id>
	<title>Re:Just typical</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1255971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find they mostly have their heads in a much darker place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find they mostly have their heads in a much darker place ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find they mostly have their heads in a much darker place ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29796215</id>
	<title>Tape Your Data To The Window, Facing the Street</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And leave your backup disks in the alley at night.  And outsource your IT to people you never meet.</p><p>That's pretty much what I think about "cloud computing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And leave your backup disks in the alley at night .
And outsource your IT to people you never meet.That 's pretty much what I think about " cloud computing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And leave your backup disks in the alley at night.
And outsource your IT to people you never meet.That's pretty much what I think about "cloud computing".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792593</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about security?</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1255959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because over the last 40 years or so NEVER has the government outsourced data center operations to 3rd party facilities run by.....like EDS, IBM, Perot Systems, Booze-Allen, SAIC...</p><p>And</p><p>Because currently contractors are completly trustworthy inside governent data centers and would never and could never pull a hard drive and walk out the door..</p><p>-----<br>And if you did not get the above joke, just realize that "cloud" vendors are no different than any other contractor that has run fed data centers and servers in some offsite location and will have to abide by the same rules and regulations. Your Data is as safe as it's always been...</p><p>Move along please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because over the last 40 years or so NEVER has the government outsourced data center operations to 3rd party facilities run by.....like EDS , IBM , Perot Systems , Booze-Allen , SAIC...AndBecause currently contractors are completly trustworthy inside governent data centers and would never and could never pull a hard drive and walk out the door..-----And if you did not get the above joke , just realize that " cloud " vendors are no different than any other contractor that has run fed data centers and servers in some offsite location and will have to abide by the same rules and regulations .
Your Data is as safe as it 's always been...Move along please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because over the last 40 years or so NEVER has the government outsourced data center operations to 3rd party facilities run by.....like EDS, IBM, Perot Systems, Booze-Allen, SAIC...AndBecause currently contractors are completly trustworthy inside governent data centers and would never and could never pull a hard drive and walk out the door..-----And if you did not get the above joke, just realize that "cloud" vendors are no different than any other contractor that has run fed data centers and servers in some offsite location and will have to abide by the same rules and regulations.
Your Data is as safe as it's always been...Move along please</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790599</id>
	<title>Not Suprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255892400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Booz Allen Hamilton is the consulting wing of the military-industrial-complex.  Look at their members: Bushes, CIA/NSA directors, etc.  This is the wing of the Republican party whose only problem with the size and scope of government is that it still has some semblance of democratic accountability, rather than having been farmed out to some shadow corporate control.  The agenda is to centralize, nationalize, and privatize key US assets wherever possible.  Information technology is becoming a crucial means of political control in the digital age.  And clouds represent the perfect way to outsource and obfuscate that control, outside the reach of pesky freedom of information laws, of course losing any disparaging information in the process.</p><p>As an anecdote: Google opened a new datacenter near here recently.  It has twice as many armed guards as IT staff.  I would hate to be the one to have to serve a warrant on that place.  Do you think that might be a convenient place to store your medical records, government or corporate e-mails, mortgage records for well-connected politicians, illegal spying programs, etc?  What happens when the information you're looking for can't be tied to any one physical machine, or geographic location even?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Booz Allen Hamilton is the consulting wing of the military-industrial-complex .
Look at their members : Bushes , CIA/NSA directors , etc .
This is the wing of the Republican party whose only problem with the size and scope of government is that it still has some semblance of democratic accountability , rather than having been farmed out to some shadow corporate control .
The agenda is to centralize , nationalize , and privatize key US assets wherever possible .
Information technology is becoming a crucial means of political control in the digital age .
And clouds represent the perfect way to outsource and obfuscate that control , outside the reach of pesky freedom of information laws , of course losing any disparaging information in the process.As an anecdote : Google opened a new datacenter near here recently .
It has twice as many armed guards as IT staff .
I would hate to be the one to have to serve a warrant on that place .
Do you think that might be a convenient place to store your medical records , government or corporate e-mails , mortgage records for well-connected politicians , illegal spying programs , etc ?
What happens when the information you 're looking for ca n't be tied to any one physical machine , or geographic location even ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Booz Allen Hamilton is the consulting wing of the military-industrial-complex.
Look at their members: Bushes, CIA/NSA directors, etc.
This is the wing of the Republican party whose only problem with the size and scope of government is that it still has some semblance of democratic accountability, rather than having been farmed out to some shadow corporate control.
The agenda is to centralize, nationalize, and privatize key US assets wherever possible.
Information technology is becoming a crucial means of political control in the digital age.
And clouds represent the perfect way to outsource and obfuscate that control, outside the reach of pesky freedom of information laws, of course losing any disparaging information in the process.As an anecdote: Google opened a new datacenter near here recently.
It has twice as many armed guards as IT staff.
I would hate to be the one to have to serve a warrant on that place.
Do you think that might be a convenient place to store your medical records, government or corporate e-mails, mortgage records for well-connected politicians, illegal spying programs, etc?
What happens when the information you're looking for can't be tied to any one physical machine, or geographic location even?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790499</id>
	<title>Not so sure</title>
	<author>Amanitin</author>
	<datestamp>1255891500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moving onto clouds always gives me the sense of losing control.<br>With government agencies I am pretty sure my tax payment records will be the first they loose, my traffic offense records the last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving onto clouds always gives me the sense of losing control.With government agencies I am pretty sure my tax payment records will be the first they loose , my traffic offense records the last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving onto clouds always gives me the sense of losing control.With government agencies I am pretty sure my tax payment records will be the first they loose, my traffic offense records the last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790519</id>
	<title>Serious Question(s)</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1255891680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of cloud computing is utilizing resources that are not located within one's general geographical area or the resources, at minimum, aren't owned by you, is that correct?

If this is the case, how then would companies and people in general be persuaded to buy the hardware to run all of these resources?  Or maybe what I'm asking is who is willing to pay for all of the cloud support?

Does Microsoft say, for example, that the new Office 2012 is entirely cloud-based; no need for apps on your local machine, but they own the server farms to host all of the thousands of Office cloud apps that people are running?

Maybe I'm confused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of cloud computing is utilizing resources that are not located within one 's general geographical area or the resources , at minimum , are n't owned by you , is that correct ?
If this is the case , how then would companies and people in general be persuaded to buy the hardware to run all of these resources ?
Or maybe what I 'm asking is who is willing to pay for all of the cloud support ?
Does Microsoft say , for example , that the new Office 2012 is entirely cloud-based ; no need for apps on your local machine , but they own the server farms to host all of the thousands of Office cloud apps that people are running ?
Maybe I 'm confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of cloud computing is utilizing resources that are not located within one's general geographical area or the resources, at minimum, aren't owned by you, is that correct?
If this is the case, how then would companies and people in general be persuaded to buy the hardware to run all of these resources?
Or maybe what I'm asking is who is willing to pay for all of the cloud support?
Does Microsoft say, for example, that the new Office 2012 is entirely cloud-based; no need for apps on your local machine, but they own the server farms to host all of the thousands of Office cloud apps that people are running?
Maybe I'm confused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29794891</id>
	<title>All you need to know about cloud computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman</a> [guardian.co.uk]<br>2. <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505\_3-10367052-16.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-5" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505\_3-10367052-16.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-5</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman [ guardian.co.uk ] 2. http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13505 \ _3-10367052-16.html ? part = rss&amp;subj = news&amp;tag = 2547-1 \ _3-0-5 [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman [guardian.co.uk]2. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505\_3-10367052-16.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-5 [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425</id>
	<title>Economies of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255890420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud computing provides lower costs due to attaining economies of scale.  The federal government certainly has scale to attain any efficiencies that a cloud operator might use to reduce the cost.  It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network. This reeks of lobbying and special interests.  Follow the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing provides lower costs due to attaining economies of scale .
The federal government certainly has scale to attain any efficiencies that a cloud operator might use to reduce the cost .
It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network .
This reeks of lobbying and special interests .
Follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing provides lower costs due to attaining economies of scale.
The federal government certainly has scale to attain any efficiencies that a cloud operator might use to reduce the cost.
It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network.
This reeks of lobbying and special interests.
Follow the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587</id>
	<title>Who cares about security?</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1255892280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something that isn't often mentioned when discussing cloud computing is a general problem with who has control over your data, where it resides, and what prevents others from accessing it. When you move to the cloud you need to be able to trust the service provider completely. This might not be a problem for unimportant things, but the government has privacy and secrecy obligations that it would not be able to fulfill by handing it sll over to a third party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that is n't often mentioned when discussing cloud computing is a general problem with who has control over your data , where it resides , and what prevents others from accessing it .
When you move to the cloud you need to be able to trust the service provider completely .
This might not be a problem for unimportant things , but the government has privacy and secrecy obligations that it would not be able to fulfill by handing it sll over to a third party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that isn't often mentioned when discussing cloud computing is a general problem with who has control over your data, where it resides, and what prevents others from accessing it.
When you move to the cloud you need to be able to trust the service provider completely.
This might not be a problem for unimportant things, but the government has privacy and secrecy obligations that it would not be able to fulfill by handing it sll over to a third party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790759</id>
	<title>Re:Just typical....oh I misread it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These government types always have their heads in the clouds...</p></div><p>....I thought that was CLOD computing.  My Bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These government types always have their heads in the clouds.......I thought that was CLOD computing .
My Bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These government types always have their heads in the clouds.......I thought that was CLOD computing.
My Bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790563</id>
	<title>Home were the money roams.</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1255892160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when will the IRS move my data into the "cloud"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when will the IRS move my data into the " cloud " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when will the IRS move my data into the "cloud"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795937</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>anomalous cohort</author>
	<datestamp>1255974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a technology perspective, you are correct. The only justification for cloud computing is economic and that makes sense only if your web and db resource <a href="http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/future-of-work/understanding-the-cloud-34847" title="toolbox.com">usage fluctuates wildly and unpredictably</a> [toolbox.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a technology perspective , you are correct .
The only justification for cloud computing is economic and that makes sense only if your web and db resource usage fluctuates wildly and unpredictably [ toolbox.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a technology perspective, you are correct.
The only justification for cloud computing is economic and that makes sense only if your web and db resource usage fluctuates wildly and unpredictably [toolbox.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29796625</id>
	<title>Re:Not Suprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Posting anonymously because I don't feel like running this by the Firm's legal team)</p><p>I work for Booz Allen. You seem to have an ax to grind. While we have several people with the last name "Bush" in the firm, none of them are higher level than mid-management. You might be referring to the Carlyle Group and their ties to Bush/Cheney, which recently took a stake in Booz Allen and now has three members on our board of directors [http://www.boozallen.com/about/leadership]. Yes, we have a former director of the NSA in our senior leadership: [http://www.boozallen.com/about/40026730/McConnell]. Coincidentally (lol) we do a lot of business with that agency. I think it's a stretch to go from that to saying there is some sort of hidden agenda.  The Washington Post wrote a [hyperbolic, IMO] piece calling Booz Allen "The Shadow Intelligence Community"- I recommend everyone interested read that. I can't believe that you have any experience with Federal contracting if you believe that we do anything other than what your Government contractually obligates us to do.</p><p>Also, what does "centralize, nationalize, and privatize key US assets" mean anyway? Isn't nationalization the opposite of privatization? I know there's a lot of illuminati-types on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but I can't see how the parent got modded up. Note I'm completely ignoring your assessment of the technology aspect because it's so horribly flawed and I have real work to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Posting anonymously because I do n't feel like running this by the Firm 's legal team ) I work for Booz Allen .
You seem to have an ax to grind .
While we have several people with the last name " Bush " in the firm , none of them are higher level than mid-management .
You might be referring to the Carlyle Group and their ties to Bush/Cheney , which recently took a stake in Booz Allen and now has three members on our board of directors [ http : //www.boozallen.com/about/leadership ] .
Yes , we have a former director of the NSA in our senior leadership : [ http : //www.boozallen.com/about/40026730/McConnell ] .
Coincidentally ( lol ) we do a lot of business with that agency .
I think it 's a stretch to go from that to saying there is some sort of hidden agenda .
The Washington Post wrote a [ hyperbolic , IMO ] piece calling Booz Allen " The Shadow Intelligence Community " - I recommend everyone interested read that .
I ca n't believe that you have any experience with Federal contracting if you believe that we do anything other than what your Government contractually obligates us to do.Also , what does " centralize , nationalize , and privatize key US assets " mean anyway ?
Is n't nationalization the opposite of privatization ?
I know there 's a lot of illuminati-types on /. , but I ca n't see how the parent got modded up .
Note I 'm completely ignoring your assessment of the technology aspect because it 's so horribly flawed and I have real work to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Posting anonymously because I don't feel like running this by the Firm's legal team)I work for Booz Allen.
You seem to have an ax to grind.
While we have several people with the last name "Bush" in the firm, none of them are higher level than mid-management.
You might be referring to the Carlyle Group and their ties to Bush/Cheney, which recently took a stake in Booz Allen and now has three members on our board of directors [http://www.boozallen.com/about/leadership].
Yes, we have a former director of the NSA in our senior leadership: [http://www.boozallen.com/about/40026730/McConnell].
Coincidentally (lol) we do a lot of business with that agency.
I think it's a stretch to go from that to saying there is some sort of hidden agenda.
The Washington Post wrote a [hyperbolic, IMO] piece calling Booz Allen "The Shadow Intelligence Community"- I recommend everyone interested read that.
I can't believe that you have any experience with Federal contracting if you believe that we do anything other than what your Government contractually obligates us to do.Also, what does "centralize, nationalize, and privatize key US assets" mean anyway?
Isn't nationalization the opposite of privatization?
I know there's a lot of illuminati-types on /., but I can't see how the parent got modded up.
Note I'm completely ignoring your assessment of the technology aspect because it's so horribly flawed and I have real work to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790931</id>
	<title>fat app servers and thin clients</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255982400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There needs to be real answers to real questions. How is cloud computing different from the fat servers and thin clients talked about in the old days? Will google allow self-provisioning of their apps to private clouds? Other company's and their web apps? Most cloud enthusiasts insist data is safe and secure on the internet, but there are many military / government orgs that must use detached, self provisioned, private clouds. Probably most major corporations will demand self-provisioned applications and data too. What no one appears to want any more is the data loss associated with fat client PCs and local hard drive applications/data. I don't think metered CPU/mem/apps/data on some supposed "secure internet" is going to work for everyone. I think people need to start thinking more about fat app/data services and thin clients on isolated intranets, perhaps using crypto VPNs to connect them, and less about global metered-use clouds on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be real answers to real questions .
How is cloud computing different from the fat servers and thin clients talked about in the old days ?
Will google allow self-provisioning of their apps to private clouds ?
Other company 's and their web apps ?
Most cloud enthusiasts insist data is safe and secure on the internet , but there are many military / government orgs that must use detached , self provisioned , private clouds .
Probably most major corporations will demand self-provisioned applications and data too .
What no one appears to want any more is the data loss associated with fat client PCs and local hard drive applications/data .
I do n't think metered CPU/mem/apps/data on some supposed " secure internet " is going to work for everyone .
I think people need to start thinking more about fat app/data services and thin clients on isolated intranets , perhaps using crypto VPNs to connect them , and less about global metered-use clouds on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be real answers to real questions.
How is cloud computing different from the fat servers and thin clients talked about in the old days?
Will google allow self-provisioning of their apps to private clouds?
Other company's and their web apps?
Most cloud enthusiasts insist data is safe and secure on the internet, but there are many military / government orgs that must use detached, self provisioned, private clouds.
Probably most major corporations will demand self-provisioned applications and data too.
What no one appears to want any more is the data loss associated with fat client PCs and local hard drive applications/data.
I don't think metered CPU/mem/apps/data on some supposed "secure internet" is going to work for everyone.
I think people need to start thinking more about fat app/data services and thin clients on isolated intranets, perhaps using crypto VPNs to connect them, and less about global metered-use clouds on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29798769</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>dekemoose</author>
	<datestamp>1255984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plenty of companies do things that aren't part of their core business, HR, Finance, Facilities Management, etc. All of these are available to be outsourced to other parties and many companies have outsourced all or parts of these to other entities with varying degrees of success. However, each of these can also be critical to your business and if you do them particularly well can provide you with an advantage over others in your industry.  Electricity is a commodity and there is essentially no value to be found for your average company in generating electricity. If you treat all of your supporting functions as commodities then it probably is best to outsource them as someone else can do it just as poorly as you for less money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of companies do things that are n't part of their core business , HR , Finance , Facilities Management , etc .
All of these are available to be outsourced to other parties and many companies have outsourced all or parts of these to other entities with varying degrees of success .
However , each of these can also be critical to your business and if you do them particularly well can provide you with an advantage over others in your industry .
Electricity is a commodity and there is essentially no value to be found for your average company in generating electricity .
If you treat all of your supporting functions as commodities then it probably is best to outsource them as someone else can do it just as poorly as you for less money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of companies do things that aren't part of their core business, HR, Finance, Facilities Management, etc.
All of these are available to be outsourced to other parties and many companies have outsourced all or parts of these to other entities with varying degrees of success.
However, each of these can also be critical to your business and if you do them particularly well can provide you with an advantage over others in your industry.
Electricity is a commodity and there is essentially no value to be found for your average company in generating electricity.
If you treat all of your supporting functions as commodities then it probably is best to outsource them as someone else can do it just as poorly as you for less money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790967</id>
	<title>how gullible do you think we really are?</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1255982940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The little red light on my scam-o-meter is blinking furiously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The little red light on my scam-o-meter is blinking furiously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The little red light on my scam-o-meter is blinking furiously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792721</id>
	<title>FFrrrrrrrrp!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a brown cloud.  Compute that, motherfuckers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a brown cloud .
Compute that , motherfuckers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a brown cloud.
Compute that, motherfuckers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790609</id>
	<title>Security Considerations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255892520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious on how this will affect so-called "cyber attacks". Several governments have expressed the need to finance high-tech defenses against such attacks. By moving all their data to the cloud, would that not become a prime target? Clouds are not flawless, magical entities that will protect you from data loss and/or security breaches. In practice, they are just a bunch of (virtual) servers. With private servers you can physically disconnect them from outside access. But clouds are by definition hooked onto the internet, which allows anyone to access them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious on how this will affect so-called " cyber attacks " .
Several governments have expressed the need to finance high-tech defenses against such attacks .
By moving all their data to the cloud , would that not become a prime target ?
Clouds are not flawless , magical entities that will protect you from data loss and/or security breaches .
In practice , they are just a bunch of ( virtual ) servers .
With private servers you can physically disconnect them from outside access .
But clouds are by definition hooked onto the internet , which allows anyone to access them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious on how this will affect so-called "cyber attacks".
Several governments have expressed the need to finance high-tech defenses against such attacks.
By moving all their data to the cloud, would that not become a prime target?
Clouds are not flawless, magical entities that will protect you from data loss and/or security breaches.
In practice, they are just a bunch of (virtual) servers.
With private servers you can physically disconnect them from outside access.
But clouds are by definition hooked onto the internet, which allows anyone to access them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791081</id>
	<title>Easier to data mine I expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would need some pretty serious encryption and data retention policies before I put anything in the cloud. Why? when all I have is my resume and stuff I could care less about if people saw it? I want to dictate who sees my stuff and when. I hate it when people go behind my back, especially when I would provide it free anyway and with the track record of even some of the biggest companies I don't trust them at all. Besides privacy it is the principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would need some pretty serious encryption and data retention policies before I put anything in the cloud .
Why ? when all I have is my resume and stuff I could care less about if people saw it ?
I want to dictate who sees my stuff and when .
I hate it when people go behind my back , especially when I would provide it free anyway and with the track record of even some of the biggest companies I do n't trust them at all .
Besides privacy it is the principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would need some pretty serious encryption and data retention policies before I put anything in the cloud.
Why? when all I have is my resume and stuff I could care less about if people saw it?
I want to dictate who sees my stuff and when.
I hate it when people go behind my back, especially when I would provide it free anyway and with the track record of even some of the biggest companies I don't trust them at all.
Besides privacy it is the principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29800811</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1255949880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.</p></div><p>These are straight arrow examples of the dedicated clouds I was referring to. Make no mistake, amazon and google are not offering dedicated cloud solutions last I checked. They are offering to share their clouds, and neither of these companies would even contemplate paying someone else for a shared cloud service to sustain their entire business.</p><p>Facebook, mySpace, and I suspect even Twitter (more recently after all their mishaps) have all moved on to virtualizing their server farms to maximize redundancy and cost efficiency. That is the natural evolution of any such mammoth web service - to turn rain drops into mist, and eliminate bottlenecks. To say all that these companies or any other company would need to do in the future is pay for some shared spot in a monolithic cloud is beyond just a leap. It is nonsensical, and will not happen.</p><p>After some more thought and some more beers, I had an Oprah ah-ha moment:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling.</p></div><p> <b>They have found someone to sell to: The US government. Who else would pay disproportionate amounts of money for something that sounds new, but actually doesn't do anything new? </b></p><p>The government is paid to spend money. If they had to spend the money they earned by actually doing something, they would not be so reckless. In fact they would be bankrupt. And China is the only reason they are not.</p><p>What is worse, <b>the government is usually the last on any bandwagon.</b></p><p>If they bought it, I say cloud season is officially over folks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.These are straight arrow examples of the dedicated clouds I was referring to .
Make no mistake , amazon and google are not offering dedicated cloud solutions last I checked .
They are offering to share their clouds , and neither of these companies would even contemplate paying someone else for a shared cloud service to sustain their entire business.Facebook , mySpace , and I suspect even Twitter ( more recently after all their mishaps ) have all moved on to virtualizing their server farms to maximize redundancy and cost efficiency .
That is the natural evolution of any such mammoth web service - to turn rain drops into mist , and eliminate bottlenecks .
To say all that these companies or any other company would need to do in the future is pay for some shared spot in a monolithic cloud is beyond just a leap .
It is nonsensical , and will not happen.After some more thought and some more beers , I had an Oprah ah-ha moment : Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling .
They have found someone to sell to : The US government .
Who else would pay disproportionate amounts of money for something that sounds new , but actually does n't do anything new ?
The government is paid to spend money .
If they had to spend the money they earned by actually doing something , they would not be so reckless .
In fact they would be bankrupt .
And China is the only reason they are not.What is worse , the government is usually the last on any bandwagon.If they bought it , I say cloud season is officially over folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.These are straight arrow examples of the dedicated clouds I was referring to.
Make no mistake, amazon and google are not offering dedicated cloud solutions last I checked.
They are offering to share their clouds, and neither of these companies would even contemplate paying someone else for a shared cloud service to sustain their entire business.Facebook, mySpace, and I suspect even Twitter (more recently after all their mishaps) have all moved on to virtualizing their server farms to maximize redundancy and cost efficiency.
That is the natural evolution of any such mammoth web service - to turn rain drops into mist, and eliminate bottlenecks.
To say all that these companies or any other company would need to do in the future is pay for some shared spot in a monolithic cloud is beyond just a leap.
It is nonsensical, and will not happen.After some more thought and some more beers, I had an Oprah ah-ha moment:Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling.
They have found someone to sell to: The US government.
Who else would pay disproportionate amounts of money for something that sounds new, but actually doesn't do anything new?
The government is paid to spend money.
If they had to spend the money they earned by actually doing something, they would not be so reckless.
In fact they would be bankrupt.
And China is the only reason they are not.What is worse, the government is usually the last on any bandwagon.If they bought it, I say cloud season is officially over folks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790417</id>
	<title>Perfect fit!</title>
	<author>peipas</author>
	<datestamp>1255890360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$20B + system built by Microsoft's new 'Danger' arm + White House IT administration = dream government cloud!</p><p>All your base are most certainly permanently lost!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 20B + system built by Microsoft 's new 'Danger ' arm + White House IT administration = dream government cloud ! All your base are most certainly permanently lost !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$20B + system built by Microsoft's new 'Danger' arm + White House IT administration = dream government cloud!All your base are most certainly permanently lost!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791601</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1255949880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm... yeah.</p><p>So gov't worker A in an agency which name the worker cannot disclose has confidential files. He also has access to a cloud application for publishing, sharing purposes.</p><p>So, how do we safe guard uploading the sensitive document, accidentally of course, to a cloud application which is not locked down or has poor security?</p><p>This has already happened with regular application, but if the information is distributed across many servers possibly many organizations how do you plug the leak?</p><p>Previously there was only a single point of failure, now there is an unknown number of locations for the information leak.</p><p>You may as well post the document link on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... yeah.So gov't worker A in an agency which name the worker can not disclose has confidential files .
He also has access to a cloud application for publishing , sharing purposes.So , how do we safe guard uploading the sensitive document , accidentally of course , to a cloud application which is not locked down or has poor security ? This has already happened with regular application , but if the information is distributed across many servers possibly many organizations how do you plug the leak ? Previously there was only a single point of failure , now there is an unknown number of locations for the information leak.You may as well post the document link on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... yeah.So gov't worker A in an agency which name the worker cannot disclose has confidential files.
He also has access to a cloud application for publishing, sharing purposes.So, how do we safe guard uploading the sensitive document, accidentally of course, to a cloud application which is not locked down or has poor security?This has already happened with regular application, but if the information is distributed across many servers possibly many organizations how do you plug the leak?Previously there was only a single point of failure, now there is an unknown number of locations for the information leak.You may as well post the document link on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29801103</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about security?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1255951560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are so ignorant, it is beyond belief. You clearly have never actually looked into cloud computing seriously.</p><p>This is a huge issue. There are times when data needs to be restricted from running in certain countries due to privacy rules (UK Medical records must remain in the UK, so can't be sent anywhere else).</p><p>There are huge issues about encryption, anonymising data, and ensuring that data is kept safe.</p><p>A great deal of though has gone into this issue, so fuck you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are so ignorant , it is beyond belief .
You clearly have never actually looked into cloud computing seriously.This is a huge issue .
There are times when data needs to be restricted from running in certain countries due to privacy rules ( UK Medical records must remain in the UK , so ca n't be sent anywhere else ) .There are huge issues about encryption , anonymising data , and ensuring that data is kept safe.A great deal of though has gone into this issue , so fuck you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are so ignorant, it is beyond belief.
You clearly have never actually looked into cloud computing seriously.This is a huge issue.
There are times when data needs to be restricted from running in certain countries due to privacy rules (UK Medical records must remain in the UK, so can't be sent anywhere else).There are huge issues about encryption, anonymising data, and ensuring that data is kept safe.A great deal of though has gone into this issue, so fuck you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29805515</id>
	<title>Re:Server Utilization</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256036640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A factor of 5 in [CPU] utilization is huge; the question is, is it realistic ? [...] no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.</p></div><p>With the right virtualisation tools and parallel algorithms, you're not limited to serving web pages or doing stuff that requires people to be awake. Batch processing needn't be dead.</p><p>Those CPUs could be indexing, running academic simulations, processing large datasets (images, videos, SETI, folding@home etc.). In fact the only reason not to have the CPUs at 100\% all the time, is energy efficiency.</p><p>Having all those processors in a cloud makes them much more accessible for such purposes.</p><p>I bet Google's processors aren't idle for much of the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A factor of 5 in [ CPU ] utilization is huge ; the question is , is it realistic ?
[ ... ] no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.With the right virtualisation tools and parallel algorithms , you 're not limited to serving web pages or doing stuff that requires people to be awake .
Batch processing need n't be dead.Those CPUs could be indexing , running academic simulations , processing large datasets ( images , videos , SETI , folding @ home etc. ) .
In fact the only reason not to have the CPUs at 100 \ % all the time , is energy efficiency.Having all those processors in a cloud makes them much more accessible for such purposes.I bet Google 's processors are n't idle for much of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A factor of 5 in [CPU] utilization is huge; the question is, is it realistic ?
[...] no amount of aggregation of government web site servers will get you much traffic in the middle of the night.With the right virtualisation tools and parallel algorithms, you're not limited to serving web pages or doing stuff that requires people to be awake.
Batch processing needn't be dead.Those CPUs could be indexing, running academic simulations, processing large datasets (images, videos, SETI, folding@home etc.).
In fact the only reason not to have the CPUs at 100\% all the time, is energy efficiency.Having all those processors in a cloud makes them much more accessible for such purposes.I bet Google's processors aren't idle for much of the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790679</id>
	<title>The joke of Gubbmint technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember Carnivore? The FBI email filter that sniffed network traffic and kept copies of emails sent to a directed user? It fell afoul of privacy groups and was eventually withdrawn as it was effectively a form of warrantless wiretapping.</p><p>I wish I could find the source - but I remember it as C/Net or something like that. Anyway, the problem behind it's withdrawal wasn't that it was ineffective, (it was) nor was it that it picked up emails to people other than the intended recipient. (It didn't) The problem was that the carnivore system itself was insecure.</p><p>So the FBI would deploy this thing, essentially packet-sniffing an ISP's network, and then would be hacked by the Chinese or the Ruskies and all the information gathered by the FBI intelligence was then disclosed to the foreign powers. It was (apparently) an open Joke within the spy community.</p><p>Why does this somehow come to mind when I think of "Cloud computing" for the gubbmint? Because as bad as it is for the gubbmint getting a system to be secured, doing so with an outside 3rd party takes the problem to a whole new magnitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Carnivore ?
The FBI email filter that sniffed network traffic and kept copies of emails sent to a directed user ?
It fell afoul of privacy groups and was eventually withdrawn as it was effectively a form of warrantless wiretapping.I wish I could find the source - but I remember it as C/Net or something like that .
Anyway , the problem behind it 's withdrawal was n't that it was ineffective , ( it was ) nor was it that it picked up emails to people other than the intended recipient .
( It did n't ) The problem was that the carnivore system itself was insecure.So the FBI would deploy this thing , essentially packet-sniffing an ISP 's network , and then would be hacked by the Chinese or the Ruskies and all the information gathered by the FBI intelligence was then disclosed to the foreign powers .
It was ( apparently ) an open Joke within the spy community.Why does this somehow come to mind when I think of " Cloud computing " for the gubbmint ?
Because as bad as it is for the gubbmint getting a system to be secured , doing so with an outside 3rd party takes the problem to a whole new magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Carnivore?
The FBI email filter that sniffed network traffic and kept copies of emails sent to a directed user?
It fell afoul of privacy groups and was eventually withdrawn as it was effectively a form of warrantless wiretapping.I wish I could find the source - but I remember it as C/Net or something like that.
Anyway, the problem behind it's withdrawal wasn't that it was ineffective, (it was) nor was it that it picked up emails to people other than the intended recipient.
(It didn't) The problem was that the carnivore system itself was insecure.So the FBI would deploy this thing, essentially packet-sniffing an ISP's network, and then would be hacked by the Chinese or the Ruskies and all the information gathered by the FBI intelligence was then disclosed to the foreign powers.
It was (apparently) an open Joke within the spy community.Why does this somehow come to mind when I think of "Cloud computing" for the gubbmint?
Because as bad as it is for the gubbmint getting a system to be secured, doing so with an outside 3rd party takes the problem to a whole new magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792265</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1255957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cloud computing offers nothing. And by nothing I mean nothing new.</p></div><p>Of course not. Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.</p><p>It's nice, though, that the rest of us can now join in cheaply and easily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing offers nothing .
And by nothing I mean nothing new.Of course not .
Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.It 's nice , though , that the rest of us can now join in cheaply and easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing offers nothing.
And by nothing I mean nothing new.Of course not.
Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.It's nice, though, that the rest of us can now join in cheaply and easily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643</id>
	<title>Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1255950600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Cloud computing offers nothing. And by nothing I mean nothing new. Nor does it fix anything. The internet already works.</b></p><p>There, I said it.</p><p>For 99\% of us, a web server does everything we need it to. Redundancy and fault tolerance are already very easy to buy in other forms that are perfectly reliable and non-invasive (RAID, adding servers for specific services, buying better hardware etc). These problems were solved long ago.</p><p>Yes, for the rare corporation that requires huge server clusters, cloudifying their infrastructure is the right direction to go. But that and buying a cloud are two completely different stories. If your server count is already that high, then you most likely already have the budget and the people to create your own cloud optimized for your specific needs, that works only for you.</p><p>Just like businesses love dedicated servers even when a shared server would do fine, businesses also love dedicated clouds.</p><p>Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling. I see a market for super cheap hosting for the masses by selling competitive hosting packages by leveraging the cost efficiency and performance benefits of a cloud. I also see a market for dedicated custom cloud solutions for the high end market. However, both of these markets are extremely saturated, and if you are not selling anything new, you are primarily competing by price alone. Any such market is a lot of hard work for not so much money.</p><p>So good luck! PS. I am not buying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing offers nothing .
And by nothing I mean nothing new .
Nor does it fix anything .
The internet already works.There , I said it.For 99 \ % of us , a web server does everything we need it to .
Redundancy and fault tolerance are already very easy to buy in other forms that are perfectly reliable and non-invasive ( RAID , adding servers for specific services , buying better hardware etc ) .
These problems were solved long ago.Yes , for the rare corporation that requires huge server clusters , cloudifying their infrastructure is the right direction to go .
But that and buying a cloud are two completely different stories .
If your server count is already that high , then you most likely already have the budget and the people to create your own cloud optimized for your specific needs , that works only for you.Just like businesses love dedicated servers even when a shared server would do fine , businesses also love dedicated clouds.Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling .
I see a market for super cheap hosting for the masses by selling competitive hosting packages by leveraging the cost efficiency and performance benefits of a cloud .
I also see a market for dedicated custom cloud solutions for the high end market .
However , both of these markets are extremely saturated , and if you are not selling anything new , you are primarily competing by price alone .
Any such market is a lot of hard work for not so much money.So good luck !
PS. I am not buying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing offers nothing.
And by nothing I mean nothing new.
Nor does it fix anything.
The internet already works.There, I said it.For 99\% of us, a web server does everything we need it to.
Redundancy and fault tolerance are already very easy to buy in other forms that are perfectly reliable and non-invasive (RAID, adding servers for specific services, buying better hardware etc).
These problems were solved long ago.Yes, for the rare corporation that requires huge server clusters, cloudifying their infrastructure is the right direction to go.
But that and buying a cloud are two completely different stories.
If your server count is already that high, then you most likely already have the budget and the people to create your own cloud optimized for your specific needs, that works only for you.Just like businesses love dedicated servers even when a shared server would do fine, businesses also love dedicated clouds.Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling.
I see a market for super cheap hosting for the masses by selling competitive hosting packages by leveraging the cost efficiency and performance benefits of a cloud.
I also see a market for dedicated custom cloud solutions for the high end market.
However, both of these markets are extremely saturated, and if you are not selling anything new, you are primarily competing by price alone.
Any such market is a lot of hard work for not so much money.So good luck!
PS. I am not buying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792321</id>
	<title>Re:Economies of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network. This reeks of lobbying and special interests.</p></div><p>The only thing it reeks of, is what the US and UK governments have favoured for the last 20 years or more -- discourage public projects, encourage private sector projects. Don't let the government build a hospital when you can enter into a "Public Private Partnership" instead.</p><p>There's plenty of precedence for trusting private companies with government data.</p><p>I do agree that a state-owned private cloud would make the most sense - but alas that's not how the US and UK governments have tended to go for a long time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network .
This reeks of lobbying and special interests.The only thing it reeks of , is what the US and UK governments have favoured for the last 20 years or more -- discourage public projects , encourage private sector projects .
Do n't let the government build a hospital when you can enter into a " Public Private Partnership " instead.There 's plenty of precedence for trusting private companies with government data.I do agree that a state-owned private cloud would make the most sense - but alas that 's not how the US and UK governments have tended to go for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is scary to think the government will hand over data and processing to the cloud instead of providing a federally managed private cloud on a secure private network.
This reeks of lobbying and special interests.The only thing it reeks of, is what the US and UK governments have favoured for the last 20 years or more -- discourage public projects, encourage private sector projects.
Don't let the government build a hospital when you can enter into a "Public Private Partnership" instead.There's plenty of precedence for trusting private companies with government data.I do agree that a state-owned private cloud would make the most sense - but alas that's not how the US and UK governments have tended to go for a long time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790731</id>
	<title>privacy issues</title>
	<author>technodude90</author>
	<datestamp>1255893600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think its best if each agency had its own servers that employees could access remotely. Data shouldn't be copied onto laptops which can then be lost. We won't have to worry about losing the data. The 3rd parties will probably sell it and be able to store it with other internal data like our phone records. I don't want the private sector having access to this any more than a person with a stolen laptop with social security numbers on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its best if each agency had its own servers that employees could access remotely .
Data should n't be copied onto laptops which can then be lost .
We wo n't have to worry about losing the data .
The 3rd parties will probably sell it and be able to store it with other internal data like our phone records .
I do n't want the private sector having access to this any more than a person with a stolen laptop with social security numbers on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its best if each agency had its own servers that employees could access remotely.
Data shouldn't be copied onto laptops which can then be lost.
We won't have to worry about losing the data.
The 3rd parties will probably sell it and be able to store it with other internal data like our phone records.
I don't want the private sector having access to this any more than a person with a stolen laptop with social security numbers on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792977</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about security?</title>
	<author>dragonturtle69</author>
	<datestamp>1255962000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Forget about the third party.  I have only time enough for a quick Google, so I apologize for the somewhat biased link, but this there are complications for cloud stuff and keeping the branches of government separate.</p><p>
<a href="http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=126436.0;wap2" title="prisonplanet.com">Arpaio and state Supreme Court</a> [prisonplanet.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget about the third party .
I have only time enough for a quick Google , so I apologize for the somewhat biased link , but this there are complications for cloud stuff and keeping the branches of government separate .
Arpaio and state Supreme Court [ prisonplanet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Forget about the third party.
I have only time enough for a quick Google, so I apologize for the somewhat biased link, but this there are complications for cloud stuff and keeping the branches of government separate.
Arpaio and state Supreme Court [prisonplanet.com]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29805765</id>
	<title>Hot stock tip</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy shares in <b>Cirrus</b> Logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy shares in Cirrus Logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy shares in Cirrus Logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790817</id>
	<title>Ask the experts: what is cloud computing?</title>
	<author>Web Goddess</author>
	<datestamp>1255894680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is cloud computing?  Knowledgeable people interviewed at Web 2.0 Expo last year describe in hilarious terms their understanding of the phrase, making only one thing clear: clouds are nebulous.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PNuQHUiV3Q" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PNuQHUiV3Q</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>--Wendy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is cloud computing ?
Knowledgeable people interviewed at Web 2.0 Expo last year describe in hilarious terms their understanding of the phrase , making only one thing clear : clouds are nebulous.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6PNuQHUiV3Q [ youtube.com ] --Wendy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is cloud computing?
Knowledgeable people interviewed at Web 2.0 Expo last year describe in hilarious terms their understanding of the phrase, making only one thing clear: clouds are nebulous.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PNuQHUiV3Q [youtube.com]--Wendy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792615</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computing offers nothing.</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1255959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is, if your buisness is not IT then why are your spending large sums of money doing it yourself?</p><p>In the early part of the 20th century many businesses ran their own Electric power stations. Then they got rid of them and got power from the grid. Why? Because for 99\% of them Electricity is not their core buisness.</p><p>For companies outside of the IT industry IT is not THEIR buisness either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is , if your buisness is not IT then why are your spending large sums of money doing it yourself ? In the early part of the 20th century many businesses ran their own Electric power stations .
Then they got rid of them and got power from the grid .
Why ? Because for 99 \ % of them Electricity is not their core buisness.For companies outside of the IT industry IT is not THEIR buisness either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is, if your buisness is not IT then why are your spending large sums of money doing it yourself?In the early part of the 20th century many businesses ran their own Electric power stations.
Then they got rid of them and got power from the grid.
Why? Because for 99\% of them Electricity is not their core buisness.For companies outside of the IT industry IT is not THEIR buisness either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29805515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29800811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29798769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29801103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29796625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_0053207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29798115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29805515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29791643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29795937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29798769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29800811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29796625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_0053207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29790587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29801103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_0053207.29792593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
