<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_29_1211236</id>
	<title>Los Angeles Goes Google Apps With Microsoft Cash</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256825940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dan Jones writes <i>"The Los Angeles City Council has approved a US$7.25 million, five-year deal with Google in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps. Interestingly, just over $1.5 million for the project will come from the <a href="http://www.cio.com.au/article/324089/google\_apps\_scores\_la\_assist\_from\_microsoft">payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the City and Microsoft</a> (Microsoft paid $70 million three years ago to settle the suit by six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software). The city will migrate from Novell GroupWise e-mail servers. For security, Google will provide a new separate data environment called 'GovCloud' to store both applications and data in a completely segregated environment that will only be used by public agencies. This GovCloud would be encrypted and 'physically and logically segregated' from Google's standard applications. Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan Jones writes " The Los Angeles City Council has approved a US $ 7.25 million , five-year deal with Google in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps .
Interestingly , just over $ 1.5 million for the project will come from the payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the City and Microsoft ( Microsoft paid $ 70 million three years ago to settle the suit by six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software ) .
The city will migrate from Novell GroupWise e-mail servers .
For security , Google will provide a new separate data environment called 'GovCloud ' to store both applications and data in a completely segregated environment that will only be used by public agencies .
This GovCloud would be encrypted and 'physically and logically segregated ' from Google 's standard applications .
Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan Jones writes "The Los Angeles City Council has approved a US$7.25 million, five-year deal with Google in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps.
Interestingly, just over $1.5 million for the project will come from the payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the City and Microsoft (Microsoft paid $70 million three years ago to settle the suit by six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software).
The city will migrate from Novell GroupWise e-mail servers.
For security, Google will provide a new separate data environment called 'GovCloud' to store both applications and data in a completely segregated environment that will only be used by public agencies.
This GovCloud would be encrypted and 'physically and logically segregated' from Google's standard applications.
Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911231</id>
	<title>Imagine how powerful Google will become</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1256834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>once they have unfettered access to all Government documents and email...
<br>
<br>
Do No Evil - ya right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>once they have unfettered access to all Government documents and email.. . Do No Evil - ya right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once they have unfettered access to all Government documents and email...


Do No Evil - ya right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911195</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>digitalPhant0m</author>
	<datestamp>1256834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team.</p> </div><p>I'd fire you for choosing Exchange.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team .
I 'd fire you for choosing Exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team.
I'd fire you for choosing Exchange.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910153</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud?</title>
	<author>Mr. Underbridge</author>
	<datestamp>1256830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>No. Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps. Nothing new.</i>
</p><p>Truly.  Can we stick this "cloud" shit in the heap with "information superhighway", "cyber", and "web 2.0"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Someone 's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps .
Nothing new .
Truly. Can we stick this " cloud " shit in the heap with " information superhighway " , " cyber " , and " web 2.0 " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No.
Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps.
Nothing new.
Truly.  Can we stick this "cloud" shit in the heap with "information superhighway", "cyber", and "web 2.0"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29922759</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>TheGreenNuke</author>
	<datestamp>1256911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, what did we ever do without email? Yes, now it is used for a great many things, but have you really forgotten how to get someone to sign-off on a procedure without an email being involved? You'd think nothing ever got done pre-interwebs.  My work (government contractor) is currently on week 3 with no internet connection, and yet it's business as usual.  You're foolish to think a couple hours of downtime for your email server is that catastrophic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what did we ever do without email ?
Yes , now it is used for a great many things , but have you really forgotten how to get someone to sign-off on a procedure without an email being involved ?
You 'd think nothing ever got done pre-interwebs .
My work ( government contractor ) is currently on week 3 with no internet connection , and yet it 's business as usual .
You 're foolish to think a couple hours of downtime for your email server is that catastrophic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what did we ever do without email?
Yes, now it is used for a great many things, but have you really forgotten how to get someone to sign-off on a procedure without an email being involved?
You'd think nothing ever got done pre-interwebs.
My work (government contractor) is currently on week 3 with no internet connection, and yet it's business as usual.
You're foolish to think a couple hours of downtime for your email server is that catastrophic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910541</id>
	<title>Re:Cannot parse title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title was hard to parse, but it wasn't so much that as the question of whether one can "go" an "app" or group of "apps".</p><p>I go the app.<br>I went the app.<br>I will go the app.</p><p>Run the app - perhaps. Go the app - no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title was hard to parse , but it was n't so much that as the question of whether one can " go " an " app " or group of " apps " .I go the app.I went the app.I will go the app.Run the app - perhaps .
Go the app - no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title was hard to parse, but it wasn't so much that as the question of whether one can "go" an "app" or group of "apps".I go the app.I went the app.I will go the app.Run the app - perhaps.
Go the app - no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911245</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally use Google Apps for some unimportant tasks, but it is worth noting that anything over about 100 or 200 rows with some computation really churns compared to Excel.</p><p>There is no comparison at all and this is while running every browser worth running (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and IE8 to check).</p><p>I have not used the Google version of Word, but I imagine it can probably avoid some of that lag (as the browser is used to handling formatting).</p><p>With that said, aside from email, I think a lot of people will be quite <b>disappointed</b> with the shift.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally use Google Apps for some unimportant tasks , but it is worth noting that anything over about 100 or 200 rows with some computation really churns compared to Excel.There is no comparison at all and this is while running every browser worth running ( Chrome , Safari , Firefox , and IE8 to check ) .I have not used the Google version of Word , but I imagine it can probably avoid some of that lag ( as the browser is used to handling formatting ) .With that said , aside from email , I think a lot of people will be quite disappointed with the shift .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally use Google Apps for some unimportant tasks, but it is worth noting that anything over about 100 or 200 rows with some computation really churns compared to Excel.There is no comparison at all and this is while running every browser worth running (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and IE8 to check).I have not used the Google version of Word, but I imagine it can probably avoid some of that lag (as the browser is used to handling formatting).With that said, aside from email, I think a lot of people will be quite disappointed with the shift.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910613</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote from TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>This GovCloud would be encrypted and "physically and logically segregated" from Google's standard applications.</p></div></blockquote><p>Surprise! The servers themselves are no better than the "peons' servers"; it's their insulation from the public internet that would make them more secure.</p><blockquote><div><p>The data would be stored only in the U.S. and only accessible to U.S citizens who have undergone security clearance.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, does that remind you of <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/17/1115205/Kaspersky-CEO-Wants-End-To-Online-Anonymity" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">some wacko wanting to end Online anonymity</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote from TFA : This GovCloud would be encrypted and " physically and logically segregated " from Google 's standard applications.Surprise !
The servers themselves are no better than the " peons ' servers " ; it 's their insulation from the public internet that would make them more secure.The data would be stored only in the U.S. and only accessible to U.S citizens who have undergone security clearance.Wait , does that remind you of some wacko wanting to end Online anonymity [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote from TFA:This GovCloud would be encrypted and "physically and logically segregated" from Google's standard applications.Surprise!
The servers themselves are no better than the "peons' servers"; it's their insulation from the public internet that would make them more secure.The data would be stored only in the U.S. and only accessible to U.S citizens who have undergone security clearance.Wait, does that remind you of some wacko wanting to end Online anonymity [slashdot.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917375</id>
	<title>Re:Cannot parse title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is. But for internal use only, never released to the pulic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is .
But for internal use only , never released to the pulic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is.
But for internal use only, never released to the pulic...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910593</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly position to overcharge for their softw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, that's just it, she does. Or are you able to get Harry Potter books from other authors more cheaply? Or from other publishers at a better price? I don't think so, and if you could you would see how quickly they get sued into oblivion.<br>Just take a look at the list of people who have 'tried to break the Harry Potter Monopoly'<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal\_disputes\_over\_the\_Harry\_Potter\_series" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal\_disputes\_over\_the\_Harry\_Potter\_series</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And anyway your analogy doesnt hold in this case. Harry Potter is not Windows, JK Rowling is not a convicted monopolist, it's not the same thing. You should have used a car analogy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , that 's just it , she does .
Or are you able to get Harry Potter books from other authors more cheaply ?
Or from other publishers at a better price ?
I do n't think so , and if you could you would see how quickly they get sued into oblivion.Just take a look at the list of people who have 'tried to break the Harry Potter Monopoly'http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal \ _disputes \ _over \ _the \ _Harry \ _Potter \ _series [ wikipedia.org ] And anyway your analogy doesnt hold in this case .
Harry Potter is not Windows , JK Rowling is not a convicted monopolist , it 's not the same thing .
You should have used a car analogy ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, that's just it, she does.
Or are you able to get Harry Potter books from other authors more cheaply?
Or from other publishers at a better price?
I don't think so, and if you could you would see how quickly they get sued into oblivion.Just take a look at the list of people who have 'tried to break the Harry Potter Monopoly'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal\_disputes\_over\_the\_Harry\_Potter\_series [wikipedia.org]And anyway your analogy doesnt hold in this case.
Harry Potter is not Windows, JK Rowling is not a convicted monopolist, it's not the same thing.
You should have used a car analogy ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910415</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly position to overcharge for their softw</title>
	<author>mc moss</author>
	<datestamp>1256831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.</p><p>But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , actually it 's nothing like that .
Reading a book does n't require anything proprietary and it does n't have to work with other software , etc.But I 'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, actually it's nothing like that.
Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921017</id>
	<title>Then no problem.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1256844120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They bitch, yet change happens.</p><p>So let them bitch and move away from unnecessary dependencies from predatory companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They bitch , yet change happens.So let them bitch and move away from unnecessary dependencies from predatory companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They bitch, yet change happens.So let them bitch and move away from unnecessary dependencies from predatory companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918809</id>
	<title>Re:Time for another class action or other suit?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They are pretty much still too expensive.</i></p><p>Only if you use MS software.  Most of the software that did not come with my Mac I downloaded and installed free.  And I didn't pirate it.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pretty much still too expensive.Only if you use MS software .
Most of the software that did not come with my Mac I downloaded and installed free .
And I did n't pirate it .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pretty much still too expensive.Only if you use MS software.
Most of the software that did not come with my Mac I downloaded and installed free.
And I didn't pirate it.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911059</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>nizo</author>
	<datestamp>1256833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh, if they had used it to buy a bunch of Microsoft products, that would have made more sense how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh , if they had used it to buy a bunch of Microsoft products , that would have made more sense how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh, if they had used it to buy a bunch of Microsoft products, that would have made more sense how?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910705</id>
	<title>Re:Answering TFS's Question...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my impression was that "cloud computing" was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.</p></div><p>You're either thinking of P2P or mesh computing.</p><p>Let's see what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud\_computing" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] has to say about it</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.</p></div><p>Okay... cloud computing is "business application accessed from a web browser".  Well, in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.</p><p>The Wikipedia page quite nicely sums up why it's more than just that: "This definition states that clouds have five essential characteristics: on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and measured service."</p><p>It's likely that LA's private pool of resources will exhibit most of that. Whether that elasticity is necessary, I'm not sure. I wonder whether Google will be able to dynamically reassign resource from their public pool to their LA pool?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my impression was that " cloud computing " was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.You 're either thinking of P2P or mesh computing.Let 's see what Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] has to say about itCloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser , while the software and data are stored on the servers.Okay... cloud computing is " business application accessed from a web browser " .
Well , in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.The Wikipedia page quite nicely sums up why it 's more than just that : " This definition states that clouds have five essential characteristics : on-demand self-service , broad network access , resource pooling , rapid elasticity , and measured service .
" It 's likely that LA 's private pool of resources will exhibit most of that .
Whether that elasticity is necessary , I 'm not sure .
I wonder whether Google will be able to dynamically reassign resource from their public pool to their LA pool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my impression was that "cloud computing" was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.You're either thinking of P2P or mesh computing.Let's see what Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has to say about itCloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.Okay... cloud computing is "business application accessed from a web browser".
Well, in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.The Wikipedia page quite nicely sums up why it's more than just that: "This definition states that clouds have five essential characteristics: on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and measured service.
"It's likely that LA's private pool of resources will exhibit most of that.
Whether that elasticity is necessary, I'm not sure.
I wonder whether Google will be able to dynamically reassign resource from their public pool to their LA pool?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910199</id>
	<title>Smart one!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moving from what is arguably the most secure stable email platform available to "the cloud"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving from what is arguably the most secure stable email platform available to " the cloud "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving from what is arguably the most secure stable email platform available to "the cloud"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909953</id>
	<title>HOLD UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I will be losing some of the 7385 MB available for my inbox space? I'm already using a whole 1\% of that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I will be losing some of the 7385 MB available for my inbox space ?
I 'm already using a whole 1 \ % of that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I will be losing some of the 7385 MB available for my inbox space?
I'm already using a whole 1\% of that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175</id>
	<title>Answering TFS's Question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?</p></div><p>I hear "cloud computing" discussed and wonder what it really means.  It seems like it's just a notion of a server connected to many clients serving data to client applications (which isn't a new concept).  However, my impression was that "cloud computing" was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.

</p><p>Let's see what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud\_computing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] has to say about it</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.</p></div><p>Okay... cloud computing is "business application accessed from a web browser".  Well, in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time ? I hear " cloud computing " discussed and wonder what it really means .
It seems like it 's just a notion of a server connected to many clients serving data to client applications ( which is n't a new concept ) .
However , my impression was that " cloud computing " was many clients connected to each other serving each other content .
Let 's see what Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] has to say about itCloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser , while the software and data are stored on the servers.Okay... cloud computing is " business application accessed from a web browser " .
Well , in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?I hear "cloud computing" discussed and wonder what it really means.
It seems like it's just a notion of a server connected to many clients serving data to client applications (which isn't a new concept).
However, my impression was that "cloud computing" was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.
Let's see what Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has to say about itCloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.Okay... cloud computing is "business application accessed from a web browser".
Well, in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910621</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not pre-empting the answer, this is a genuine question and not an attempt to score points:</p><p>Were paid Google Apps customers as badly affected as users of the free GMail service?</p><p>Do big customers like LA City Council have more stringent SLAs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not pre-empting the answer , this is a genuine question and not an attempt to score points : Were paid Google Apps customers as badly affected as users of the free GMail service ? Do big customers like LA City Council have more stringent SLAs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not pre-empting the answer, this is a genuine question and not an attempt to score points:Were paid Google Apps customers as badly affected as users of the free GMail service?Do big customers like LA City Council have more stringent SLAs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910143</id>
	<title>Shakedown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The money the city was paid for being "overcharged" gets used to migrate away from some product never made by Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The money the city was paid for being " overcharged " gets used to migrate away from some product never made by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The money the city was paid for being "overcharged" gets used to migrate away from some product never made by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914077</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing</title>
	<author>notaprguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256845080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Google has a few thousand customers - most of whom are also using Microsoft Office - and Microsoft is dead? Ok then...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Google has a few thousand customers - most of whom are also using Microsoft Office - and Microsoft is dead ?
Ok then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Google has a few thousand customers - most of whom are also using Microsoft Office - and Microsoft is dead?
Ok then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29919283</id>
	<title>Re:Google called me yesterday</title>
	<author>DDLKermit007</author>
	<datestamp>1256825040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who want local access are more concerned about their job normally. Smart people want the data out of their physical location. Google provides a more reliable system for free than I've ever seen offered with such redundancy that the cost didn't seem like a runaway science project. One would bet this system for government will not be suffering what the free users get. Free users get live updates to test, and the segregated systems get the update a month or so later after the massive test has taken place unless it's security related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who want local access are more concerned about their job normally .
Smart people want the data out of their physical location .
Google provides a more reliable system for free than I 've ever seen offered with such redundancy that the cost did n't seem like a runaway science project .
One would bet this system for government will not be suffering what the free users get .
Free users get live updates to test , and the segregated systems get the update a month or so later after the massive test has taken place unless it 's security related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who want local access are more concerned about their job normally.
Smart people want the data out of their physical location.
Google provides a more reliable system for free than I've ever seen offered with such redundancy that the cost didn't seem like a runaway science project.
One would bet this system for government will not be suffering what the free users get.
Free users get live updates to test, and the segregated systems get the update a month or so later after the massive test has taken place unless it's security related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</id>
	<title>Monopoly position to overcharge for their software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be like JK Rowling using her " monopoly position " on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books .
They made it , they should be able to set the price for their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books.
They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733</id>
	<title>Google called me yesterday</title>
	<author>PinternetGroper</author>
	<datestamp>1256832720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a small 200+ computer operation and had Google Enterprise call yesterday.  We use their Postini service for spam and really like it. The sales rep on the line wanted to know if we were interested in their Apps product and had mentioned that Los Angeles recently switched to it.

Call me traditional or old-fashioned, but I like having physical access to my data. I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running.  If e-mail is down, I can fix it, instead of calling someone else to check it out for me.

Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well.  What is the general overall feeling from IT on "cloud computing"?  I'd be curious the thoughts from the LA IT department...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a small 200 + computer operation and had Google Enterprise call yesterday .
We use their Postini service for spam and really like it .
The sales rep on the line wanted to know if we were interested in their Apps product and had mentioned that Los Angeles recently switched to it .
Call me traditional or old-fashioned , but I like having physical access to my data .
I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running .
If e-mail is down , I can fix it , instead of calling someone else to check it out for me .
Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well .
What is the general overall feeling from IT on " cloud computing " ?
I 'd be curious the thoughts from the LA IT department.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a small 200+ computer operation and had Google Enterprise call yesterday.
We use their Postini service for spam and really like it.
The sales rep on the line wanted to know if we were interested in their Apps product and had mentioned that Los Angeles recently switched to it.
Call me traditional or old-fashioned, but I like having physical access to my data.
I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running.
If e-mail is down, I can fix it, instead of calling someone else to check it out for me.
Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well.
What is the general overall feeling from IT on "cloud computing"?
I'd be curious the thoughts from the LA IT department...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910611</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Eh, this Slashvertisement was probably paid bought by Google's marketing people.  What do you expect?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , this Slashvertisement was probably paid bought by Google 's marketing people .
What do you expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Eh, this Slashvertisement was probably paid bought by Google's marketing people.
What do you expect?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915633</id>
	<title>JK Rowling</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256807940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.</i></p><p>Amassing isn't it?  A person on welfare could become one of the world's richest people via their own work.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be like JK Rowling using her " monopoly position " on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books .
They made it , they should be able to set the price for their product.Amassing is n't it ?
A person on welfare could become one of the world 's richest people via their own work .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books.
They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.Amassing isn't it?
A person on welfare could become one of the world's richest people via their own work.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29913167</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Cash?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1256841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it that the author can say Microsoft's money is being used for this project? If you rob me of money, and then I sue you and the court *gives me back my money*, and then I buy something with it, I'm not buying it with *your* money, I'm buying it with *my* money (or, in this case, L.A. Taxpayers' money).</p><p>According to the court, it apparently never was Microsoft's money to begin with. (One could endlessly argue about Monopolies, and whether Microsoft really is a monopoly, and whether the court award was correct, but that's tangential to my argument, so I don't want to get into that - my point is, even if it *was* Microsoft's money before the lawsuit, it is no longer their money afterwords).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it that the author can say Microsoft 's money is being used for this project ?
If you rob me of money , and then I sue you and the court * gives me back my money * , and then I buy something with it , I 'm not buying it with * your * money , I 'm buying it with * my * money ( or , in this case , L.A. Taxpayers ' money ) .According to the court , it apparently never was Microsoft 's money to begin with .
( One could endlessly argue about Monopolies , and whether Microsoft really is a monopoly , and whether the court award was correct , but that 's tangential to my argument , so I do n't want to get into that - my point is , even if it * was * Microsoft 's money before the lawsuit , it is no longer their money afterwords ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it that the author can say Microsoft's money is being used for this project?
If you rob me of money, and then I sue you and the court *gives me back my money*, and then I buy something with it, I'm not buying it with *your* money, I'm buying it with *my* money (or, in this case, L.A. Taxpayers' money).According to the court, it apparently never was Microsoft's money to begin with.
(One could endlessly argue about Monopolies, and whether Microsoft really is a monopoly, and whether the court award was correct, but that's tangential to my argument, so I don't want to get into that - my point is, even if it *was* Microsoft's money before the lawsuit, it is no longer their money afterwords).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911903</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your cynicism is dead on, but maybe that is exactly why this is a good idea.  At Slashdot, we get constant discussion about how IT departments are stupid.  So maybe having a few really big data centers that are well run is better than this idea of every company having it's own data center and IT department.  There just wasn't enough bandwidth to do this in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cynicism is dead on , but maybe that is exactly why this is a good idea .
At Slashdot , we get constant discussion about how IT departments are stupid .
So maybe having a few really big data centers that are well run is better than this idea of every company having it 's own data center and IT department .
There just was n't enough bandwidth to do this in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cynicism is dead on, but maybe that is exactly why this is a good idea.
At Slashdot, we get constant discussion about how IT departments are stupid.
So maybe having a few really big data centers that are well run is better than this idea of every company having it's own data center and IT department.
There just wasn't enough bandwidth to do this in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</id>
	<title>The times are changing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the advancement of Google and open-source software, can we say that Microsoft has a monopoly on anything except its operating system?</p><p>I'm not saying that the court decisions were wrong, but this article goes to show how a few years can change the landscape and just how far Google and open-source software has come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software , can we say that Microsoft has a monopoly on anything except its operating system ? I 'm not saying that the court decisions were wrong , but this article goes to show how a few years can change the landscape and just how far Google and open-source software has come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software, can we say that Microsoft has a monopoly on anything except its operating system?I'm not saying that the court decisions were wrong, but this article goes to show how a few years can change the landscape and just how far Google and open-source software has come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910961</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1256833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has far better uptime than any local IT department I've worked with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has far better uptime than any local IT department I 've worked with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has far better uptime than any local IT department I've worked with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912747</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>T0mBerenger</author>
	<datestamp>1256839920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  I think it has more to do with the City being large enough to negotiate that through the standard Terms of Service.

  I would prefer my email to be encrypted and segregated too, but Google hasn't gotten back to me yet on my Request For Proposal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has more to do with the City being large enough to negotiate that through the standard Terms of Service .
I would prefer my email to be encrypted and segregated too , but Google has n't gotten back to me yet on my Request For Proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I think it has more to do with the City being large enough to negotiate that through the standard Terms of Service.
I would prefer my email to be encrypted and segregated too, but Google hasn't gotten back to me yet on my Request For Proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911387</id>
	<title>Re:Cannot parse title</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1256835120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they'd brought back Microsoft Money.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they 'd brought back Microsoft Money .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they'd brought back Microsoft Money.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910561</id>
	<title>This will be interesting....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dad is an LA City firefighter, and I'm happy for him that he won't have to put up with GroupWise anymore (what a piece of crap), but I'm also not sure that he's ready for the switch to all cloud based apps. Hopefully the city isn't so dumb that they pull all the software they've already paid for licenses of and force everyone to move to the Google Apps version, but that's putting a lot of hope in a city that doesn't usually do smart things with technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dad is an LA City firefighter , and I 'm happy for him that he wo n't have to put up with GroupWise anymore ( what a piece of crap ) , but I 'm also not sure that he 's ready for the switch to all cloud based apps .
Hopefully the city is n't so dumb that they pull all the software they 've already paid for licenses of and force everyone to move to the Google Apps version , but that 's putting a lot of hope in a city that does n't usually do smart things with technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dad is an LA City firefighter, and I'm happy for him that he won't have to put up with GroupWise anymore (what a piece of crap), but I'm also not sure that he's ready for the switch to all cloud based apps.
Hopefully the city isn't so dumb that they pull all the software they've already paid for licenses of and force everyone to move to the Google Apps version, but that's putting a lot of hope in a city that doesn't usually do smart things with technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911881</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly position to overcharge for their softw</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1256836860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>JK Rowling's monopoly position on Harry Potter doesn't mean I have to buy it. I can read another author's books without any trouble, even if I'm the only person who does so. This is fundamentally different to software, where I must have compatibility with my bank, government agencies especially tax departments and other business's. If the government starts requiring I buy Harry Potter books to be able to file my taxes I'll object to that too.
<br> <br>
I note that there has been no anti-trust action against MS in my country that I'm aware of and yet the MS stranglehold is in many ways broken. Unlike a few years ago you can access most banks without windows, MS supports odf, OOo compatibility is good enough for many people and pdf is suitable for document sharing. The one area that still requires MS is taxation which is the fault of the government not MS. So I would agree that the solution is the market rather than anti-trust law. If government procurement policies mandated open formats and protocols this would have been a complete non-issue. As far as I'm concerned the government has no right to require the use of a particular companies software, it is legal action against the government that is required here, not action against MS.
<br> <br>
Even to the extent that any software company has a monopoly they have it because of copyright which is a government intervention in the market anyway. It can be argued that it is a good intervention but it is a government intervention nonetheless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JK Rowling 's monopoly position on Harry Potter does n't mean I have to buy it .
I can read another author 's books without any trouble , even if I 'm the only person who does so .
This is fundamentally different to software , where I must have compatibility with my bank , government agencies especially tax departments and other business 's .
If the government starts requiring I buy Harry Potter books to be able to file my taxes I 'll object to that too .
I note that there has been no anti-trust action against MS in my country that I 'm aware of and yet the MS stranglehold is in many ways broken .
Unlike a few years ago you can access most banks without windows , MS supports odf , OOo compatibility is good enough for many people and pdf is suitable for document sharing .
The one area that still requires MS is taxation which is the fault of the government not MS. So I would agree that the solution is the market rather than anti-trust law .
If government procurement policies mandated open formats and protocols this would have been a complete non-issue .
As far as I 'm concerned the government has no right to require the use of a particular companies software , it is legal action against the government that is required here , not action against MS . Even to the extent that any software company has a monopoly they have it because of copyright which is a government intervention in the market anyway .
It can be argued that it is a good intervention but it is a government intervention nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JK Rowling's monopoly position on Harry Potter doesn't mean I have to buy it.
I can read another author's books without any trouble, even if I'm the only person who does so.
This is fundamentally different to software, where I must have compatibility with my bank, government agencies especially tax departments and other business's.
If the government starts requiring I buy Harry Potter books to be able to file my taxes I'll object to that too.
I note that there has been no anti-trust action against MS in my country that I'm aware of and yet the MS stranglehold is in many ways broken.
Unlike a few years ago you can access most banks without windows, MS supports odf, OOo compatibility is good enough for many people and pdf is suitable for document sharing.
The one area that still requires MS is taxation which is the fault of the government not MS. So I would agree that the solution is the market rather than anti-trust law.
If government procurement policies mandated open formats and protocols this would have been a complete non-issue.
As far as I'm concerned the government has no right to require the use of a particular companies software, it is legal action against the government that is required here, not action against MS.
 
Even to the extent that any software company has a monopoly they have it because of copyright which is a government intervention in the market anyway.
It can be argued that it is a good intervention but it is a government intervention nonetheless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910927</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>Fastolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1256833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a business</p></div></blockquote><p>Citation needed.  What theoretical "business-class" SLA are you holding Google to, and can you demonstrate that they haven't met it?  Doing some hand waving about two or three outages this year, without quantifying how long they were, or what percentage of users were affected, is insufficient.</p><blockquote><div><p>but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time?</p></div></blockquote><p>If unusually high availability of e-mail/documents is truly that important, if the brief unavailability of these services would bring justice to its knees, then I might question any decision not to invest in a hyper-available infrastructure.  Simply not moving to Google Apps wouldn't be enough, in this case.  I would expect the government to construct their own infrastructure with multiple levels of redundancy and code diversity, redundant networks and power systems.  Obviously, they aren't going to do that.  I strongly suspect (but, I admit, don't know for sure) that the city is choosing between managing a "standard" business-class infrastructure, and Google.  If you're truly asserting that Google Apps does a poorer job than a typical business setup, I'd appreciate seeing some actual numbers to back up your assertion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not able to meet the SLA 's required for a businessCitation needed .
What theoretical " business-class " SLA are you holding Google to , and can you demonstrate that they have n't met it ?
Doing some hand waving about two or three outages this year , without quantifying how long they were , or what percentage of users were affected , is insufficient.but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases were n't tried in due time ? If unusually high availability of e-mail/documents is truly that important , if the brief unavailability of these services would bring justice to its knees , then I might question any decision not to invest in a hyper-available infrastructure .
Simply not moving to Google Apps would n't be enough , in this case .
I would expect the government to construct their own infrastructure with multiple levels of redundancy and code diversity , redundant networks and power systems .
Obviously , they are n't going to do that .
I strongly suspect ( but , I admit , do n't know for sure ) that the city is choosing between managing a " standard " business-class infrastructure , and Google .
If you 're truly asserting that Google Apps does a poorer job than a typical business setup , I 'd appreciate seeing some actual numbers to back up your assertion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a businessCitation needed.
What theoretical "business-class" SLA are you holding Google to, and can you demonstrate that they haven't met it?
Doing some hand waving about two or three outages this year, without quantifying how long they were, or what percentage of users were affected, is insufficient.but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time?If unusually high availability of e-mail/documents is truly that important, if the brief unavailability of these services would bring justice to its knees, then I might question any decision not to invest in a hyper-available infrastructure.
Simply not moving to Google Apps wouldn't be enough, in this case.
I would expect the government to construct their own infrastructure with multiple levels of redundancy and code diversity, redundant networks and power systems.
Obviously, they aren't going to do that.
I strongly suspect (but, I admit, don't know for sure) that the city is choosing between managing a "standard" business-class infrastructure, and Google.
If you're truly asserting that Google Apps does a poorer job than a typical business setup, I'd appreciate seeing some actual numbers to back up your assertion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910769</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1256832840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like two hours that Gmail wasn't available. Get over it!!!<br> <br>

It's not like it's gonna cost you that much money because the e-mail isn't available for such a short time... If it's *that* mission critical it's your fault for not providing a more reliable alternative to Gmail. And no, just getting an Exchange server is not more reliable... just the Windows updates that actually install without problems will probably total up in more 'downtime' per year.<br> <br>

Most people just forget that e-mail still performs superbly compared to snail-mail, but just like snail-mail some messages can take a little longer. An e-mail is never guaranteed to be delivered in a few seconds. Some take minutes, some hours and i've even seen a couple delayed by a day. Not having the mail delivered for 2 hours hardly counts as a significant delay.<br> <br>

Bitching about it doesn't really help now does it? Taking an extra long lunch might help though...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like two hours that Gmail was n't available .
Get over it ! ! !
It 's not like it 's gon na cost you that much money because the e-mail is n't available for such a short time... If it 's * that * mission critical it 's your fault for not providing a more reliable alternative to Gmail .
And no , just getting an Exchange server is not more reliable... just the Windows updates that actually install without problems will probably total up in more 'downtime ' per year .
Most people just forget that e-mail still performs superbly compared to snail-mail , but just like snail-mail some messages can take a little longer .
An e-mail is never guaranteed to be delivered in a few seconds .
Some take minutes , some hours and i 've even seen a couple delayed by a day .
Not having the mail delivered for 2 hours hardly counts as a significant delay .
Bitching about it does n't really help now does it ?
Taking an extra long lunch might help though... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like two hours that Gmail wasn't available.
Get over it!!!
It's not like it's gonna cost you that much money because the e-mail isn't available for such a short time... If it's *that* mission critical it's your fault for not providing a more reliable alternative to Gmail.
And no, just getting an Exchange server is not more reliable... just the Windows updates that actually install without problems will probably total up in more 'downtime' per year.
Most people just forget that e-mail still performs superbly compared to snail-mail, but just like snail-mail some messages can take a little longer.
An e-mail is never guaranteed to be delivered in a few seconds.
Some take minutes, some hours and i've even seen a couple delayed by a day.
Not having the mail delivered for 2 hours hardly counts as a significant delay.
Bitching about it doesn't really help now does it?
Taking an extra long lunch might help though... :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917417</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction.</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1256814540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are also the kind of people that I would either never hire or get rid of shortly if I ran the company.</p><p>In this economy and technology aware world, why the hell would you want an employee that can't adapt to a simple word processor change?</p><p>You want MS office? OK but you are getting a 20\% pay cut then bitch; oh you need MS Project and Visio? make that a 40\% pay cut.</p><p>(Visio is debatable as I haven't seen anything comparable; any suggestions?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are also the kind of people that I would either never hire or get rid of shortly if I ran the company.In this economy and technology aware world , why the hell would you want an employee that ca n't adapt to a simple word processor change ? You want MS office ?
OK but you are getting a 20 \ % pay cut then bitch ; oh you need MS Project and Visio ?
make that a 40 \ % pay cut .
( Visio is debatable as I have n't seen anything comparable ; any suggestions ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are also the kind of people that I would either never hire or get rid of shortly if I ran the company.In this economy and technology aware world, why the hell would you want an employee that can't adapt to a simple word processor change?You want MS office?
OK but you are getting a 20\% pay cut then bitch; oh you need MS Project and Visio?
make that a 40\% pay cut.
(Visio is debatable as I haven't seen anything comparable; any suggestions?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910459</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly position to overcharge for their softw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not the same at all.  There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.  That's free market vs monopoly market economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the same at all .
There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling 's does own all the printing presses .
That 's free market vs monopoly market economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the same at all.
There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.
That's free market vs monopoly market economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29913601</id>
	<title>It occurs to me....</title>
	<author>DigitalSorceress</author>
	<datestamp>1256843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me that if they need to build a separate, secure, private, insert-adjective-here system, then it doesn't really speak much for the bog-standard cloud they're offering the rest of us.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Google deliberately. I use google apps... signed up for it with one of my domains and two users so I could have a chance to really play with the service... and I like it a lot.</p><p>Still, if they need to make a separate cloud for government, then aren't they kind of breaking the "cloud" paradigm and just providing outsourced hosting / SAS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me that if they need to build a separate , secure , private , insert-adjective-here system , then it does n't really speak much for the bog-standard cloud they 're offering the rest of us.Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not bashing Google deliberately .
I use google apps... signed up for it with one of my domains and two users so I could have a chance to really play with the service... and I like it a lot.Still , if they need to make a separate cloud for government , then are n't they kind of breaking the " cloud " paradigm and just providing outsourced hosting / SAS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me that if they need to build a separate, secure, private, insert-adjective-here system, then it doesn't really speak much for the bog-standard cloud they're offering the rest of us.Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Google deliberately.
I use google apps... signed up for it with one of my domains and two users so I could have a chance to really play with the service... and I like it a lot.Still, if they need to make a separate cloud for government, then aren't they kind of breaking the "cloud" paradigm and just providing outsourced hosting / SAS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</id>
	<title>Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a word, no, Google mail is not ready for primetime. They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a business, especially government work where the email system needs to be readily available. I would assume there is some extent of document management involved here, and if that's the case what happens when gmail goes down? I know government tends to move slowly, but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time? Businesses and government use email for more than just simple communication, it could also be a sign-off step in a procedure's workflow, and breaking that is often a big problem.
<br> <br>
In 2009 Gmail was down in February and then in September, and I believe there was at least once more occurence this year as well. In 2008 Google was down in July, three times in August, and once in October. If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team.
<br> <br>
Sure Google gives you 15 days free when the service is unavailable for a period of time, but that doesn't really help now does it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a word , no , Google mail is not ready for primetime .
They are not able to meet the SLA 's required for a business , especially government work where the email system needs to be readily available .
I would assume there is some extent of document management involved here , and if that 's the case what happens when gmail goes down ?
I know government tends to move slowly , but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases were n't tried in due time ?
Businesses and government use email for more than just simple communication , it could also be a sign-off step in a procedure 's workflow , and breaking that is often a big problem .
In 2009 Gmail was down in February and then in September , and I believe there was at least once more occurence this year as well .
In 2008 Google was down in July , three times in August , and once in October .
If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team .
Sure Google gives you 15 days free when the service is unavailable for a period of time , but that does n't really help now does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a word, no, Google mail is not ready for primetime.
They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a business, especially government work where the email system needs to be readily available.
I would assume there is some extent of document management involved here, and if that's the case what happens when gmail goes down?
I know government tends to move slowly, but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time?
Businesses and government use email for more than just simple communication, it could also be a sign-off step in a procedure's workflow, and breaking that is often a big problem.
In 2009 Gmail was down in February and then in September, and I believe there was at least once more occurence this year as well.
In 2008 Google was down in July, three times in August, and once in October.
If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team.
Sure Google gives you 15 days free when the service is unavailable for a period of time, but that doesn't really help now does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910899</id>
	<title>Re:Cannot parse title</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256833260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... marvellous Redmond product...</p></div><p>When has that ever happened?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... marvellous Redmond product...When has that ever happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... marvellous Redmond product...When has that ever happened?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912981</id>
	<title>California's letter to Microsoft</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1256840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Microsoft:</p><p>Forget the fact that you overcharge<br>us, we can overlook that.  You were<br>counting on your monopoly to<br>keep us as customers and that's not right.</p><p>Your products, however, are shoddy and<br>outside the realm of<br>usability.  We will switch to Google.</p><p>Love,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; California</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Microsoft : Forget the fact that you overchargeus , we can overlook that .
You werecounting on your monopoly tokeep us as customers and that 's not right.Your products , however , are shoddy andoutside the realm ofusability .
We will switch to Google.Love ,     California</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Microsoft:Forget the fact that you overchargeus, we can overlook that.
You werecounting on your monopoly tokeep us as customers and that's not right.Your products, however, are shoddy andoutside the realm ofusability.
We will switch to Google.Love,
    California</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910015</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they took money they received by being able to say that microsoft had some sort of monopoly and used it to purchase products and services from Microsoft's competitor?  Maybe I'm missing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they took money they received by being able to say that microsoft had some sort of monopoly and used it to purchase products and services from Microsoft 's competitor ?
Maybe I 'm missing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they took money they received by being able to say that microsoft had some sort of monopoly and used it to purchase products and services from Microsoft's competitor?
Maybe I'm missing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911853</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1256836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,</p></div><p>Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.</p></div><p>I'm not saying Google is open source. I am saying that the successes of Ubuntu and Open Office, combined with the resources provided from Google, has created some competition for Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,Oh yes , Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that 's so secret they wo n't release the source code to.I 'm not saying Google is open source .
I am saying that the successes of Ubuntu and Open Office , combined with the resources provided from Google , has created some competition for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.I'm not saying Google is open source.
I am saying that the successes of Ubuntu and Open Office, combined with the resources provided from Google, has created some competition for Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</id>
	<title>Why segregate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the government servers more reliable, or more secure than the regular servers? If that's the case, what does that say about the peons who don't have access to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the government servers more reliable , or more secure than the regular servers ?
If that 's the case , what does that say about the peons who do n't have access to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the government servers more reliable, or more secure than the regular servers?
If that's the case, what does that say about the peons who don't have access to it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915291</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256849940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud computing also saves companies from massive spending sprees to upgrade hardware and software as well as the IT needed to support them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing also saves companies from massive spending sprees to upgrade hardware and software as well as the IT needed to support them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing also saves companies from massive spending sprees to upgrade hardware and software as well as the IT needed to support them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911361</id>
	<title>Re:HOLD UP</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1256835000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still shows 0\% for me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).  I think I'm using like 44MB total.</p><p>Google has to be using some compression or something though.  My Lotus Notes mail file at work with a similar message volume is 600+ MB.</p><p>I find it ironic though when they determined at work that we all needed to clean up our mailboxes in anticipation for a 250MB quota.  Google manages to give me 7GB and with our own dedicated server our admin wants me to stay within 250MB.  Something just seems wrong about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still shows 0 \ % for me : ) .
I think I 'm using like 44MB total.Google has to be using some compression or something though .
My Lotus Notes mail file at work with a similar message volume is 600 + MB.I find it ironic though when they determined at work that we all needed to clean up our mailboxes in anticipation for a 250MB quota .
Google manages to give me 7GB and with our own dedicated server our admin wants me to stay within 250MB .
Something just seems wrong about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still shows 0\% for me :).
I think I'm using like 44MB total.Google has to be using some compression or something though.
My Lotus Notes mail file at work with a similar message volume is 600+ MB.I find it ironic though when they determined at work that we all needed to clean up our mailboxes in anticipation for a 250MB quota.
Google manages to give me 7GB and with our own dedicated server our admin wants me to stay within 250MB.
Something just seems wrong about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911769</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>Schadrach</author>
	<datestamp>1256836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably a mix of FIMSA and public accountability/recordkeeping laws.  Consider that one of the points made when Palin's Yahoo! email was "cracked" was that it was illegal for her to use that account for any kind of government business due to an accountability law in that state.  Likely similar considerations are at the root of having a separate government cloud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably a mix of FIMSA and public accountability/recordkeeping laws .
Consider that one of the points made when Palin 's Yahoo !
email was " cracked " was that it was illegal for her to use that account for any kind of government business due to an accountability law in that state .
Likely similar considerations are at the root of having a separate government cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably a mix of FIMSA and public accountability/recordkeeping laws.
Consider that one of the points made when Palin's Yahoo!
email was "cracked" was that it was illegal for her to use that account for any kind of government business due to an accountability law in that state.
Likely similar considerations are at the root of having a separate government cloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918355</id>
	<title>Re:HOLD UP</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1256819760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Others had some reasons, but I think the real (management) reason is based on "Data Retention Policies".  Which, really, are "Data Shredding Policies" -- they state "we will retain this data for at least 30 days" (or other time limit), but what they really mean is "we will dispose of this data on day 31, and will not be liable for any losses caused by it because it's stated right here in our policy."</p><p>Similar to the "this phone call <b>may</b> be monitored or recorded to promote customer service" etc; what it really means is "every phone call is being recorded, so govern yourselves accordingly."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others had some reasons , but I think the real ( management ) reason is based on " Data Retention Policies " .
Which , really , are " Data Shredding Policies " -- they state " we will retain this data for at least 30 days " ( or other time limit ) , but what they really mean is " we will dispose of this data on day 31 , and will not be liable for any losses caused by it because it 's stated right here in our policy .
" Similar to the " this phone call may be monitored or recorded to promote customer service " etc ; what it really means is " every phone call is being recorded , so govern yourselves accordingly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others had some reasons, but I think the real (management) reason is based on "Data Retention Policies".
Which, really, are "Data Shredding Policies" -- they state "we will retain this data for at least 30 days" (or other time limit), but what they really mean is "we will dispose of this data on day 31, and will not be liable for any losses caused by it because it's stated right here in our policy.
"Similar to the "this phone call may be monitored or recorded to promote customer service" etc; what it really means is "every phone call is being recorded, so govern yourselves accordingly.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912029</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system. Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".</p></div><p>In the long term, I'd guess there is no (local) IT admin. If an employee has an IT problem, they call Google directly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there 's a problem with a system .
Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees ca n't access crucial data , the IT admin simply points at Google and says " it 's not my fault or my problem " .In the long term , I 'd guess there is no ( local ) IT admin .
If an employee has an IT problem , they call Google directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system.
Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".In the long term, I'd guess there is no (local) IT admin.
If an employee has an IT problem, they call Google directly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</id>
	<title>Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?</em></p><p>No.</p><p>What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system. Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".</p><p>That's all cloud computing offers. Unless you're a bit paranoid, in which case it also provides a single-point of attack for the government to eavesdrop under the banner of "keeping America safe".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time ? No.What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there 's a problem with a system .
Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees ca n't access crucial data , the IT admin simply points at Google and says " it 's not my fault or my problem " .That 's all cloud computing offers .
Unless you 're a bit paranoid , in which case it also provides a single-point of attack for the government to eavesdrop under the banner of " keeping America safe " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?No.What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system.
Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".That's all cloud computing offers.
Unless you're a bit paranoid, in which case it also provides a single-point of attack for the government to eavesdrop under the banner of "keeping America safe".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035</id>
	<title>My prediction.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular.<br> <br>
The biggest thing is space. In my(admittedly modest; but definitely nonzero) experience, users really, really hate dealing with storage quotas and love doing things(like storing files in the form of email attachments) that bump them into quotas. Unless the LA IT guys were unusually generous, or their deal with Google unusually stingy, most user's quotas will probably go up substantially. Plus, with Google doc's sharing functions, there will hopefully be much less attachment clutter eating email quota space.<br> <br>

Aside from heavy users of particular Office functions, who will almost certainly end up retaining local copies of office one way or another(whether it be official IT department policy, or local departmental budgets, or some other means), most people will probably care more about not bumping into quotas than anything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be a subset of users who will hate it , mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse , but on the whole it 'll be pretty popular .
The biggest thing is space .
In my ( admittedly modest ; but definitely nonzero ) experience , users really , really hate dealing with storage quotas and love doing things ( like storing files in the form of email attachments ) that bump them into quotas .
Unless the LA IT guys were unusually generous , or their deal with Google unusually stingy , most user 's quotas will probably go up substantially .
Plus , with Google doc 's sharing functions , there will hopefully be much less attachment clutter eating email quota space .
Aside from heavy users of particular Office functions , who will almost certainly end up retaining local copies of office one way or another ( whether it be official IT department policy , or local departmental budgets , or some other means ) , most people will probably care more about not bumping into quotas than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular.
The biggest thing is space.
In my(admittedly modest; but definitely nonzero) experience, users really, really hate dealing with storage quotas and love doing things(like storing files in the form of email attachments) that bump them into quotas.
Unless the LA IT guys were unusually generous, or their deal with Google unusually stingy, most user's quotas will probably go up substantially.
Plus, with Google doc's sharing functions, there will hopefully be much less attachment clutter eating email quota space.
Aside from heavy users of particular Office functions, who will almost certainly end up retaining local copies of office one way or another(whether it be official IT department policy, or local departmental budgets, or some other means), most people will probably care more about not bumping into quotas than anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918915</id>
	<title>Re:Google called me yesterday</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Myself, I'd far prefer *not* to have physical access to my data. If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy, space-consuming, power-consuming, attention hogging hardware, I'll take that thanks.</i></p><p>Me, I prefer control and high availability.  To me that means local physical access.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myself , I 'd far prefer * not * to have physical access to my data .
If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy , space-consuming , power-consuming , attention hogging hardware , I 'll take that thanks.Me , I prefer control and high availability .
To me that means local physical access .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myself, I'd far prefer *not* to have physical access to my data.
If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy, space-consuming, power-consuming, attention hogging hardware, I'll take that thanks.Me, I prefer control and high availability.
To me that means local physical access.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911301</id>
	<title>Re: Marvelous Redmond Products</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1256834880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They "promised" it. Ya know, Microsoft produces world class vaporware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They " promised " it .
Ya know , Microsoft produces world class vaporware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They "promised" it.
Ya know, Microsoft produces world class vaporware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925</id>
	<title>Cannot parse title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought "Microsoft Cash" was a new marvellous Redmond product I hadn't heard of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought " Microsoft Cash " was a new marvellous Redmond product I had n't heard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought "Microsoft Cash" was a new marvellous Redmond product I hadn't heard of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910685</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, it sounds like multiple governments', or at least multiple government agencies' data are on the same cloud?  I hope for Google's sake it doesn't get cracked, because pissing off one government sounds like no fun, let alone a handful of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it sounds like multiple governments ' , or at least multiple government agencies ' data are on the same cloud ?
I hope for Google 's sake it does n't get cracked , because pissing off one government sounds like no fun , let alone a handful of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it sounds like multiple governments', or at least multiple government agencies' data are on the same cloud?
I hope for Google's sake it doesn't get cracked, because pissing off one government sounds like no fun, let alone a handful of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912359</id>
	<title>I'm sure that LA taxpayers will be happy</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256838480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the city paid 7 million dollars for software everybody else uses for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the city paid 7 million dollars for software everybody else uses for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the city paid 7 million dollars for software everybody else uses for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910699</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>TastyCakes</author>
	<datestamp>1256832540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean the technicians that are going to be made redundant by this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the technicians that are going to be made redundant by this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the technicians that are going to be made redundant by this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910953</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail is not ready.</title>
	<author>mrmagos</author>
	<datestamp>1256833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, lets be fair. If you're going to compare Gmail to Exchange, at least compare it to an Exchange implementation of similar scale - such as Hotmail. A cursory search turned up an <a href="http://windowslivewire.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2F7EB29B42641D59!36006.entry" title="live.com" rel="nofollow">outage from March</a> [live.com] and one from <a href="http://windowslivewire.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!2F7EB29B42641D59!41545.entry" title="live.com" rel="nofollow">earlier this month</a> [live.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , lets be fair .
If you 're going to compare Gmail to Exchange , at least compare it to an Exchange implementation of similar scale - such as Hotmail .
A cursory search turned up an outage from March [ live.com ] and one from earlier this month [ live.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, lets be fair.
If you're going to compare Gmail to Exchange, at least compare it to an Exchange implementation of similar scale - such as Hotmail.
A cursory search turned up an outage from March [live.com] and one from earlier this month [live.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911743</id>
	<title>Won't last more than a couple of years.....</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1256836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....and then they'll be back to Exchange or Domino or GeeWhizz!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....and then they 'll be back to Exchange or Domino or GeeWhizz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....and then they'll be back to Exchange or Domino or GeeWhizz!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910431</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>MikePo</author>
	<datestamp>1256831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without knowing the current Infrastructure that LA uses I can't say with certainty that Google will be less secure. However typical it is always more secure to keep your data in house than outsourcing that storage.</p><p>While the LA spokesman says it will be more secure that our current solution. I'm sure he is a PR weenie and if you talk to technicians in LA they would disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without knowing the current Infrastructure that LA uses I ca n't say with certainty that Google will be less secure .
However typical it is always more secure to keep your data in house than outsourcing that storage.While the LA spokesman says it will be more secure that our current solution .
I 'm sure he is a PR weenie and if you talk to technicians in LA they would disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without knowing the current Infrastructure that LA uses I can't say with certainty that Google will be less secure.
However typical it is always more secure to keep your data in house than outsourcing that storage.While the LA spokesman says it will be more secure that our current solution.
I'm sure he is a PR weenie and if you talk to technicians in LA they would disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910881</id>
	<title>Finally open goverment</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1256833200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love it, we finally will have open government.  Just Google your local representatives name, and all the related email, documents, and maybe even web searches, will be there for users to browse.  Transparency, accountability, and honesty.  No more browsing on craigslist on taxpayers time.  No more hiding behind the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it , we finally will have open government .
Just Google your local representatives name , and all the related email , documents , and maybe even web searches , will be there for users to browse .
Transparency , accountability , and honesty .
No more browsing on craigslist on taxpayers time .
No more hiding behind the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it, we finally will have open government.
Just Google your local representatives name, and all the related email, documents, and maybe even web searches, will be there for users to browse.
Transparency, accountability, and honesty.
No more browsing on craigslist on taxpayers time.
No more hiding behind the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910567</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a step towards relieving MS of their monopoly, even on OSs.</p><p>How long until LA city employees don't need Windows for anything. If everything they do is in the browser, they can use Linux (maybe in the guise of ChromeOS)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a step towards relieving MS of their monopoly , even on OSs.How long until LA city employees do n't need Windows for anything .
If everything they do is in the browser , they can use Linux ( maybe in the guise of ChromeOS )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a step towards relieving MS of their monopoly, even on OSs.How long until LA city employees don't need Windows for anything.
If everything they do is in the browser, they can use Linux (maybe in the guise of ChromeOS)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915017</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the Buck</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1256848920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".</i></p><p>I'm not sure who you mean by "the IT admin"?  Is that like a buggy-whip maker?</p><p>One of the big advantages that makes remote hosting with a standard application infrastructure (which is all "cloud computing" is in this context) attractive is that you get to fire most of your admins because you no longer have much in the way of in-house servers.</p><p>One of the reasons why this is happening now is because after a decade of of living with "a computer on every desktop and in every home" we have a very good idea of what we want these gadgets to do, and a pretty good idea of how to do it.  So the economic viability of remotely hosted standard applications is the result of the rapidly slowly pace of innovation in desktop office software (which is no surprise.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the IT admin simply points at Google and says " it 's not my fault or my problem " .I 'm not sure who you mean by " the IT admin " ?
Is that like a buggy-whip maker ? One of the big advantages that makes remote hosting with a standard application infrastructure ( which is all " cloud computing " is in this context ) attractive is that you get to fire most of your admins because you no longer have much in the way of in-house servers.One of the reasons why this is happening now is because after a decade of of living with " a computer on every desktop and in every home " we have a very good idea of what we want these gadgets to do , and a pretty good idea of how to do it .
So the economic viability of remotely hosted standard applications is the result of the rapidly slowly pace of innovation in desktop office software ( which is no surprise .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".I'm not sure who you mean by "the IT admin"?
Is that like a buggy-whip maker?One of the big advantages that makes remote hosting with a standard application infrastructure (which is all "cloud computing" is in this context) attractive is that you get to fire most of your admins because you no longer have much in the way of in-house servers.One of the reasons why this is happening now is because after a decade of of living with "a computer on every desktop and in every home" we have a very good idea of what we want these gadgets to do, and a pretty good idea of how to do it.
So the economic viability of remotely hosted standard applications is the result of the rapidly slowly pace of innovation in desktop office software (which is no surprise.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911197</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing</title>
	<author>Miros</author>
	<datestamp>1256834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They still have quite a good lock on business productivity software (i.e. office).  Nobody else even comes close to them on that.  Google will probably continue to eat away at it for a long time but it does not look like it will tip away from Microsoft's favor in the near future.  Don't forget, Microsoft has a ton of cash and they are probably not sitting on their hands waiting for Google to decapitate their cash cow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They still have quite a good lock on business productivity software ( i.e .
office ) . Nobody else even comes close to them on that .
Google will probably continue to eat away at it for a long time but it does not look like it will tip away from Microsoft 's favor in the near future .
Do n't forget , Microsoft has a ton of cash and they are probably not sitting on their hands waiting for Google to decapitate their cash cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still have quite a good lock on business productivity software (i.e.
office).  Nobody else even comes close to them on that.
Google will probably continue to eat away at it for a long time but it does not look like it will tip away from Microsoft's favor in the near future.
Don't forget, Microsoft has a ton of cash and they are probably not sitting on their hands waiting for Google to decapitate their cash cow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921711</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction.</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1256898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We bitch...<br><br>Our IT department recently gave us a new web app. It saves one department an hour a week, it costs me an extra hour a week. An extra hour a week I could be spending with my family.<br><br>You wonder why we bitch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We bitch...Our IT department recently gave us a new web app .
It saves one department an hour a week , it costs me an extra hour a week .
An extra hour a week I could be spending with my family.You wonder why we bitch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We bitch...Our IT department recently gave us a new web app.
It saves one department an hour a week, it costs me an extra hour a week.
An extra hour a week I could be spending with my family.You wonder why we bitch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910227</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing - Yes, but ...</title>
	<author>Herschel Cohen</author>
	<datestamp>1256830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You neglect the effect of the close call that MS experienced that tempered, somewhat its proclivity for using the Mafia business model.  Remember even under the W, supposedly MS was under judicial restraint. Those factors had to play a role in allowing competition to reappear*.</p><p>* However, if you look at the netbook experience where Linux suddenly vanished (supposedly completely) from its initial dominance one can see hints that MS is probably back to its old game, but the environment has altered in the interim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You neglect the effect of the close call that MS experienced that tempered , somewhat its proclivity for using the Mafia business model .
Remember even under the W , supposedly MS was under judicial restraint .
Those factors had to play a role in allowing competition to reappear * .
* However , if you look at the netbook experience where Linux suddenly vanished ( supposedly completely ) from its initial dominance one can see hints that MS is probably back to its old game , but the environment has altered in the interim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You neglect the effect of the close call that MS experienced that tempered, somewhat its proclivity for using the Mafia business model.
Remember even under the W, supposedly MS was under judicial restraint.
Those factors had to play a role in allowing competition to reappear*.
* However, if you look at the netbook experience where Linux suddenly vanished (supposedly completely) from its initial dominance one can see hints that MS is probably back to its old game, but the environment has altered in the interim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921083</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256844900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am someone who uses Apps. Overall it is OK, but the apps themselves are pretty basic compared to what is already out there (Free+paid). Google have a habit of upgrading stuff without telling you, which breaks features occasionally. Add to that trying to actually get IS help on it is a nightmare.</p><p>The enterprise model is somewhat different then just putting *beta* apps on the net and letting people use them. Google has a bit of catching up there to do (imho).</p><p>But if someone thinks apps is groundbreaking should probably try using it in a real business environment first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am someone who uses Apps .
Overall it is OK , but the apps themselves are pretty basic compared to what is already out there ( Free + paid ) .
Google have a habit of upgrading stuff without telling you , which breaks features occasionally .
Add to that trying to actually get IS help on it is a nightmare.The enterprise model is somewhat different then just putting * beta * apps on the net and letting people use them .
Google has a bit of catching up there to do ( imho ) .But if someone thinks apps is groundbreaking should probably try using it in a real business environment first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am someone who uses Apps.
Overall it is OK, but the apps themselves are pretty basic compared to what is already out there (Free+paid).
Google have a habit of upgrading stuff without telling you, which breaks features occasionally.
Add to that trying to actually get IS help on it is a nightmare.The enterprise model is somewhat different then just putting *beta* apps on the net and letting people use them.
Google has a bit of catching up there to do (imho).But if someone thinks apps is groundbreaking should probably try using it in a real business environment first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910815</id>
	<title>Re:Answering TFS's Question...</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1256833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud computing is the client-server model that everyone is used to... but where the "server" is distributed.</p><p>There are significant advantages over a more traditional client-server model, even if the "server" is a cluster.  Because the cloud is distributed geographically; 1. infrastructure outages are far less damaging to the application, 2. entire data centers can be taken off line and added at will, 3. power and cooling advantages can be used to keep costs lower, 4. Bandwidth utilization are distributed to multiple centers, which may help prevent saturation of regional carrier networks, 5. data may be read from the closest data center reducing bandwidth utilization vs a single data center on the other side of the globe.</p><p>Many things don't make sense to have on the cloud... but some things are particularly well suited for it.  Email, I believe, is the ultimate cloud use... it needs high availability and fault tolerance.  It needs huge capacities.  And finally to keep storage utilization to a minimum, you will ideally have a single mail store, otherwise a single email sent to users on several mail stores will result in several copies of the same data.  This kills Exchange in a lot of large organizations, a VP sends a large attachment to all of the regional head, now that same attachment exists on every exchange server in the organization, gets backed up with every server backup, and possibly never gets deleted since it came from the boss.  A single mail store means a single copy (redundancy excluded, that exists with many mail stores too) of that attachemnt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing is the client-server model that everyone is used to... but where the " server " is distributed.There are significant advantages over a more traditional client-server model , even if the " server " is a cluster .
Because the cloud is distributed geographically ; 1. infrastructure outages are far less damaging to the application , 2. entire data centers can be taken off line and added at will , 3. power and cooling advantages can be used to keep costs lower , 4 .
Bandwidth utilization are distributed to multiple centers , which may help prevent saturation of regional carrier networks , 5. data may be read from the closest data center reducing bandwidth utilization vs a single data center on the other side of the globe.Many things do n't make sense to have on the cloud... but some things are particularly well suited for it .
Email , I believe , is the ultimate cloud use... it needs high availability and fault tolerance .
It needs huge capacities .
And finally to keep storage utilization to a minimum , you will ideally have a single mail store , otherwise a single email sent to users on several mail stores will result in several copies of the same data .
This kills Exchange in a lot of large organizations , a VP sends a large attachment to all of the regional head , now that same attachment exists on every exchange server in the organization , gets backed up with every server backup , and possibly never gets deleted since it came from the boss .
A single mail store means a single copy ( redundancy excluded , that exists with many mail stores too ) of that attachemnt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing is the client-server model that everyone is used to... but where the "server" is distributed.There are significant advantages over a more traditional client-server model, even if the "server" is a cluster.
Because the cloud is distributed geographically; 1. infrastructure outages are far less damaging to the application, 2. entire data centers can be taken off line and added at will, 3. power and cooling advantages can be used to keep costs lower, 4.
Bandwidth utilization are distributed to multiple centers, which may help prevent saturation of regional carrier networks, 5. data may be read from the closest data center reducing bandwidth utilization vs a single data center on the other side of the globe.Many things don't make sense to have on the cloud... but some things are particularly well suited for it.
Email, I believe, is the ultimate cloud use... it needs high availability and fault tolerance.
It needs huge capacities.
And finally to keep storage utilization to a minimum, you will ideally have a single mail store, otherwise a single email sent to users on several mail stores will result in several copies of the same data.
This kills Exchange in a lot of large organizations, a VP sends a large attachment to all of the regional head, now that same attachment exists on every exchange server in the organization, gets backed up with every server backup, and possibly never gets deleted since it came from the boss.
A single mail store means a single copy (redundancy excluded, that exists with many mail stores too) of that attachemnt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29926741</id>
	<title>and that's good</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that's exactly what it does and that is what it's intended to do: it means you need fewer admins and they don't need to be as good, thereby lowering costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's exactly what it does and that is what it 's intended to do : it means you need fewer admins and they do n't need to be as good , thereby lowering costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's exactly what it does and that is what it's intended to do: it means you need fewer admins and they don't need to be as good, thereby lowering costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910277</id>
	<title>Time for another class action or other suit?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1256831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually don't know the details of the suit or settlement associated with the three California counties suit against Microsoft using its monopoly position to overcharge for software, but I observe that the suit did not result in lower prices.  They are pretty much still too expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually do n't know the details of the suit or settlement associated with the three California counties suit against Microsoft using its monopoly position to overcharge for software , but I observe that the suit did not result in lower prices .
They are pretty much still too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually don't know the details of the suit or settlement associated with the three California counties suit against Microsoft using its monopoly position to overcharge for software, but I observe that the suit did not result in lower prices.
They are pretty much still too expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29924281</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Failures due to Microsoft errors have been responsible for crashes, downtime, data loss, and data leaks, yet large parts of the government still enthusiastically supported Microsoft.  So, that doesn't look like a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Failures due to Microsoft errors have been responsible for crashes , downtime , data loss , and data leaks , yet large parts of the government still enthusiastically supported Microsoft .
So , that does n't look like a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Failures due to Microsoft errors have been responsible for crashes, downtime, data loss, and data leaks, yet large parts of the government still enthusiastically supported Microsoft.
So, that doesn't look like a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914959</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're more reliable than the Microsoft Danger servers I believe.  People are still reporting data loss on their SideKicks today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're more reliable than the Microsoft Danger servers I believe .
People are still reporting data loss on their SideKicks today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're more reliable than the Microsoft Danger servers I believe.
People are still reporting data loss on their SideKicks today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911125</id>
	<title>Re:Google called me yesterday</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Call me traditional or old-fashioned, but I like having physical access to my data. I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running. If e-mail is down, I can fix it, instead of calling someone else to check it out for me. Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well.</p></div><p>I guess you like it because it's your job, and if your job was reduced to passing questions onto someone else, you'd be redundant.</p><p>Myself, I'd far prefer *not* to have physical access to my data. If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy, space-consuming, power-consuming, attention hogging hardware, I'll take that thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me traditional or old-fashioned , but I like having physical access to my data .
I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running .
If e-mail is down , I can fix it , instead of calling someone else to check it out for me .
Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well.I guess you like it because it 's your job , and if your job was reduced to passing questions onto someone else , you 'd be redundant.Myself , I 'd far prefer * not * to have physical access to my data .
If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy , space-consuming , power-consuming , attention hogging hardware , I 'll take that thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me traditional or old-fashioned, but I like having physical access to my data.
I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running.
If e-mail is down, I can fix it, instead of calling someone else to check it out for me.
Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well.I guess you like it because it's your job, and if your job was reduced to passing questions onto someone else, you'd be redundant.Myself, I'd far prefer *not* to have physical access to my data.
If I can have secure access to my data without having to worry about messy, space-consuming, power-consuming, attention hogging hardware, I'll take that thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915355</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud?</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1256807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would someone please mod this guy up to 9000?</p><p>I'm tired of marketing/sales dweebs "discovering" the Internet and renaming things that have already existed for years.  I'm sick of this "cloud computing", "blogs", and "web 2.0" bull crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone please mod this guy up to 9000 ? I 'm tired of marketing/sales dweebs " discovering " the Internet and renaming things that have already existed for years .
I 'm sick of this " cloud computing " , " blogs " , and " web 2.0 " bull crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone please mod this guy up to 9000?I'm tired of marketing/sales dweebs "discovering" the Internet and renaming things that have already existed for years.
I'm sick of this "cloud computing", "blogs", and "web 2.0" bull crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910763</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1256832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would any gov agency think that it is a good idea to send all of its data of the unprotected internet and store it on some server that could be anywhere in the world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would any gov agency think that it is a good idea to send all of its data of the unprotected internet and store it on some server that could be anywhere in the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would any gov agency think that it is a good idea to send all of its data of the unprotected internet and store it on some server that could be anywhere in the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910951</id>
	<title>Re:The times are changing</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,</p></div><p>Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,Oh yes , Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that 's so secret they wo n't release the source code to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the advancement of Google and open-source software,Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910375</id>
	<title>60s -- 90s -- 60s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so control of data and code goes back where it started, within the huge corporations.</p><p>Except now the racks of clusters and virtual machines are called "clouds".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so control of data and code goes back where it started , within the huge corporations.Except now the racks of clusters and virtual machines are called " clouds " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so control of data and code goes back where it started, within the huge corporations.Except now the racks of clusters and virtual machines are called "clouds".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910453</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly position to overcharge for their softw</title>
	<author>IP\_Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1256831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.<br> <br>Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The is the whole point of a " monopoly position " , they did n't just make a product , they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product , creating an artificially high price .
Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company , shuts them down , turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture , and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910785</id>
	<title>Re:Answering TFS's Question...</title>
	<author>Miros</author>
	<datestamp>1256832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>applications running on <i>a third party's server being maintained by a third party's employees</i>.  This is the first application of their new GovCloud, but I'm sure it wont be the last, and there is virtually no doubt that the resources that they had to create for this project can be utilized in supporting other similar applications.  That means that unlike the service that may have been previously provided by the internal resources of the state costs to the provider are actually going to decrease over time on a per user basis as they add more customers and spread the cost of their workforce and equipment out over more clients.  It's massively more efficient from a costs perspective which is what really matters here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>applications running on a third party 's server being maintained by a third party 's employees .
This is the first application of their new GovCloud , but I 'm sure it wont be the last , and there is virtually no doubt that the resources that they had to create for this project can be utilized in supporting other similar applications .
That means that unlike the service that may have been previously provided by the internal resources of the state costs to the provider are actually going to decrease over time on a per user basis as they add more customers and spread the cost of their workforce and equipment out over more clients .
It 's massively more efficient from a costs perspective which is what really matters here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>applications running on a third party's server being maintained by a third party's employees.
This is the first application of their new GovCloud, but I'm sure it wont be the last, and there is virtually no doubt that the resources that they had to create for this project can be utilized in supporting other similar applications.
That means that unlike the service that may have been previously provided by the internal resources of the state costs to the provider are actually going to decrease over time on a per user basis as they add more customers and spread the cost of their workforce and equipment out over more clients.
It's massively more efficient from a costs perspective which is what really matters here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029</id>
	<title>Cloud?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?</p></div><p>No.  Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps.  Nothing new.</p><p>Of all the places on the interwebs, I would hope<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. could refrain from the marketing babble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time ? No .
Someone 's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps .
Nothing new.Of all the places on the interwebs , I would hope / .
could refrain from the marketing babble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?No.
Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps.
Nothing new.Of all the places on the interwebs, I would hope /.
could refrain from the marketing babble.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction.</title>
	<author>sarhjinian</author>
	<datestamp>1256836920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular..</p></div><p>More people than you think will hate it.  The average, desk-bound, minimum-wage Excel/Outlook jockey will bitch at <i>any</i> change.  Note that these people bitch if you get them a new computer, or even if you move the coffee machine to a new room down the hall.  They bitch at every change, every day, all the time.  These people are, in a lot of organizations, far more pervasive than you might think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be a subset of users who will hate it , mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse , but on the whole it 'll be pretty popular..More people than you think will hate it .
The average , desk-bound , minimum-wage Excel/Outlook jockey will bitch at any change .
Note that these people bitch if you get them a new computer , or even if you move the coffee machine to a new room down the hall .
They bitch at every change , every day , all the time .
These people are , in a lot of organizations , far more pervasive than you might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular..More people than you think will hate it.
The average, desk-bound, minimum-wage Excel/Outlook jockey will bitch at any change.
Note that these people bitch if you get them a new computer, or even if you move the coffee machine to a new room down the hall.
They bitch at every change, every day, all the time.
These people are, in a lot of organizations, far more pervasive than you might think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910857</id>
	<title>Re:Why segregate?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple.<br>Almost all higher ups in government for some reason have Law degrees and is currently or use to be lawyers.  If there is a problem they will point their fingers down a chain of rube-goldberg like causes and effects until it hits someone Who has no one else to point too.  Then this person who is usually just a public servant or a vender will take all the heat for a full chain of mistakes that caused some problem. So say gmail went down for 5 hours.  Sure it is a mistake on googles part.  However it is more of an inconvenience then a major problem.  However during this time a public servant didn't get the email saying they needed to send a document or pay a check because he wasn't notified because email was down. The person who sent the letter realized shortly after he sent the message email went down did nothing about it assuming the servant recievied the message but because email was down he couldn't get a conformation.  His boss asked if it was done the manager says he sent the servant the message, he didn't get a response back because email went down after he sent it.  The boss above him took it as the task was completed.  Now because of this lack of task there was a major problem.  So the upper manager points to the upper middle manager says you said it was done. the upper middle manger will point to the middle manager and blame him for telling it was done,  the middle manager will point to servant for not sending the information on time but the employee will point to google saying the email was down and couldn't get the message.  Google gets the heat.</p><p>This wasn't really googles fault.  If this was important the middle manager could have called the employee to check to see if he got it. The Upper Middle manager could have asked the middle manager to verify by phone f they got the information.  The upper boss could have asked more details on when it was going to happen.</p><p>It was a breakdown in the management of the organization . Sure google went down however their management was broken and the problem is the fault of many people.</p><p>Companies at least the good ones don't do this type of behavior as much as it is a wast of their resources, and nothing is done to prevent it from happening again.  So google can feel a bit more lax in running their system.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple.Almost all higher ups in government for some reason have Law degrees and is currently or use to be lawyers .
If there is a problem they will point their fingers down a chain of rube-goldberg like causes and effects until it hits someone Who has no one else to point too .
Then this person who is usually just a public servant or a vender will take all the heat for a full chain of mistakes that caused some problem .
So say gmail went down for 5 hours .
Sure it is a mistake on googles part .
However it is more of an inconvenience then a major problem .
However during this time a public servant did n't get the email saying they needed to send a document or pay a check because he was n't notified because email was down .
The person who sent the letter realized shortly after he sent the message email went down did nothing about it assuming the servant recievied the message but because email was down he could n't get a conformation .
His boss asked if it was done the manager says he sent the servant the message , he did n't get a response back because email went down after he sent it .
The boss above him took it as the task was completed .
Now because of this lack of task there was a major problem .
So the upper manager points to the upper middle manager says you said it was done .
the upper middle manger will point to the middle manager and blame him for telling it was done , the middle manager will point to servant for not sending the information on time but the employee will point to google saying the email was down and could n't get the message .
Google gets the heat.This was n't really googles fault .
If this was important the middle manager could have called the employee to check to see if he got it .
The Upper Middle manager could have asked the middle manager to verify by phone f they got the information .
The upper boss could have asked more details on when it was going to happen.It was a breakdown in the management of the organization .
Sure google went down however their management was broken and the problem is the fault of many people.Companies at least the good ones do n't do this type of behavior as much as it is a wast of their resources , and nothing is done to prevent it from happening again .
So google can feel a bit more lax in running their system .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.Almost all higher ups in government for some reason have Law degrees and is currently or use to be lawyers.
If there is a problem they will point their fingers down a chain of rube-goldberg like causes and effects until it hits someone Who has no one else to point too.
Then this person who is usually just a public servant or a vender will take all the heat for a full chain of mistakes that caused some problem.
So say gmail went down for 5 hours.
Sure it is a mistake on googles part.
However it is more of an inconvenience then a major problem.
However during this time a public servant didn't get the email saying they needed to send a document or pay a check because he wasn't notified because email was down.
The person who sent the letter realized shortly after he sent the message email went down did nothing about it assuming the servant recievied the message but because email was down he couldn't get a conformation.
His boss asked if it was done the manager says he sent the servant the message, he didn't get a response back because email went down after he sent it.
The boss above him took it as the task was completed.
Now because of this lack of task there was a major problem.
So the upper manager points to the upper middle manager says you said it was done.
the upper middle manger will point to the middle manager and blame him for telling it was done,  the middle manager will point to servant for not sending the information on time but the employee will point to google saying the email was down and couldn't get the message.
Google gets the heat.This wasn't really googles fault.
If this was important the middle manager could have called the employee to check to see if he got it.
The Upper Middle manager could have asked the middle manager to verify by phone f they got the information.
The upper boss could have asked more details on when it was going to happen.It was a breakdown in the management of the organization .
Sure google went down however their management was broken and the problem is the fault of many people.Companies at least the good ones don't do this type of behavior as much as it is a wast of their resources, and nothing is done to prevent it from happening again.
So google can feel a bit more lax in running their system.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29924281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29926741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29919283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29922759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1211236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29924281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29922759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29919283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29914077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29913167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29909953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29917417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29921711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29915017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29926741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29912981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29918809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29911059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1211236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1211236.29910705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
