<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_06_0247246</id>
	<title>Air Force Extends Plug-and-Play Spacecraft</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260119220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"Looking to build strategic satellites in days if need be, rather than months, the Air Force is pushing forward with what it calls <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48766">plug-and-play spacecraft</a>.  This week it awarded a $500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft 'bus' which will offer standard interfaces for a variety of payload components, much like a laptop computer that immediately recognizes new hardware when it's plugged in, Northrop stated. The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $200 million."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " Looking to build strategic satellites in days if need be , rather than months , the Air Force is pushing forward with what it calls plug-and-play spacecraft .
This week it awarded a $ 500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft 'bus ' which will offer standard interfaces for a variety of payload components , much like a laptop computer that immediately recognizes new hardware when it 's plugged in , Northrop stated .
The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $ 200 million .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "Looking to build strategic satellites in days if need be, rather than months, the Air Force is pushing forward with what it calls plug-and-play spacecraft.
This week it awarded a $500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft 'bus' which will offer standard interfaces for a variety of payload components, much like a laptop computer that immediately recognizes new hardware when it's plugged in, Northrop stated.
The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $200 million.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341784</id>
	<title>USB</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1260132840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Universal Space Bus.<p>Actually it'll be interesting to see where light peak goes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Universal Space Bus.Actually it 'll be interesting to see where light peak goes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universal Space Bus.Actually it'll be interesting to see where light peak goes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341276</id>
	<title>this very same thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>is what got the aliens beaten by a macintosh and a loser like jeff goldblum. compile everything in, disable all dynamic modules!</htmltext>
<tokenext>is what got the aliens beaten by a macintosh and a loser like jeff goldblum .
compile everything in , disable all dynamic modules !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is what got the aliens beaten by a macintosh and a loser like jeff goldblum.
compile everything in, disable all dynamic modules!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341900</id>
	<title>Re:USB analogy is a big bogus</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260091740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The device you plug into is a single point of failure anyways  (potentially).
If the same device exposes a DHCP equivalent to its direct ports, and handles inter-plugin-device addressing properly (when multiple plugin-devices interconnect), then the DHCP equivalent's not an additional point of failure.
</p><p>
Also, DHCP doesn't have to be a single point of failure even on a LAN -- multiple DHCP servers can be used, with a supernet split according to <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc958936.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">the 80/20 rule</a> [microsoft.com].
</p><p>
Also, unless the static IP addresses are of the IPv6 sort, or  EUI-64/48  (64-bit or 48-bit MAC addresses),  there is a point of failure introduced -- as in the equivalent of an IP conflict.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The device you plug into is a single point of failure anyways ( potentially ) .
If the same device exposes a DHCP equivalent to its direct ports , and handles inter-plugin-device addressing properly ( when multiple plugin-devices interconnect ) , then the DHCP equivalent 's not an additional point of failure .
Also , DHCP does n't have to be a single point of failure even on a LAN -- multiple DHCP servers can be used , with a supernet split according to the 80/20 rule [ microsoft.com ] .
Also , unless the static IP addresses are of the IPv6 sort , or EUI-64/48 ( 64-bit or 48-bit MAC addresses ) , there is a point of failure introduced -- as in the equivalent of an IP conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The device you plug into is a single point of failure anyways  (potentially).
If the same device exposes a DHCP equivalent to its direct ports, and handles inter-plugin-device addressing properly (when multiple plugin-devices interconnect), then the DHCP equivalent's not an additional point of failure.
Also, DHCP doesn't have to be a single point of failure even on a LAN -- multiple DHCP servers can be used, with a supernet split according to the 80/20 rule [microsoft.com].
Also, unless the static IP addresses are of the IPv6 sort, or  EUI-64/48  (64-bit or 48-bit MAC addresses),  there is a point of failure introduced -- as in the equivalent of an IP conflict.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342212</id>
	<title>Reinventing the wheel?</title>
	<author>pacinpm</author>
	<datestamp>1260098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half a billion for reinventing the wheel? I mean, we have USB for a long time already, how hard can it be to reimplement it in military harware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half a billion for reinventing the wheel ?
I mean , we have USB for a long time already , how hard can it be to reimplement it in military harware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half a billion for reinventing the wheel?
I mean, we have USB for a long time already, how hard can it be to reimplement it in military harware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342964</id>
	<title>Re:here's a crazy question</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1260112260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wishbone is a communications interface for CPUs.  The AF is looking for a standard interface for discovery, cooperation, power, communication and a host of other things and it has to be capable of sufficient redundancy in a space environment.  An "Analysis of Alternatives" (seeing if there is anything already out there), is a requirement prior to any program like this going forward.  In other words, they already checked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wishbone is a communications interface for CPUs .
The AF is looking for a standard interface for discovery , cooperation , power , communication and a host of other things and it has to be capable of sufficient redundancy in a space environment .
An " Analysis of Alternatives " ( seeing if there is anything already out there ) , is a requirement prior to any program like this going forward .
In other words , they already checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wishbone is a communications interface for CPUs.
The AF is looking for a standard interface for discovery, cooperation, power, communication and a host of other things and it has to be capable of sufficient redundancy in a space environment.
An "Analysis of Alternatives" (seeing if there is anything already out there), is a requirement prior to any program like this going forward.
In other words, they already checked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341942</id>
	<title>Standard communication bus</title>
	<author>Cochonou</author>
	<datestamp>1260092820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to know where you are coming from, a bus interface commonly used right now on satellites in U.S. and Europe is <a href="http://pccorot15.obspm.fr/COROT-ETC/Files/1553\_overview.pdf" title="obspm.fr">MIL-STD-1553B</a> [obspm.fr]. This is basically a dual-redundant differential 1 Mb/s bus over a wire pair. There's a single bus controller which initiates all the transactions, and up to 31 remote terminals which respond to the bus controller.<br>
What is a bit surprising is that for military aircraft, current designs have been moving from 1553 to Firewire (which is plug and play). So that may suggest that Firewire would be unsuitable for satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know where you are coming from , a bus interface commonly used right now on satellites in U.S. and Europe is MIL-STD-1553B [ obspm.fr ] .
This is basically a dual-redundant differential 1 Mb/s bus over a wire pair .
There 's a single bus controller which initiates all the transactions , and up to 31 remote terminals which respond to the bus controller .
What is a bit surprising is that for military aircraft , current designs have been moving from 1553 to Firewire ( which is plug and play ) .
So that may suggest that Firewire would be unsuitable for satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know where you are coming from, a bus interface commonly used right now on satellites in U.S. and Europe is MIL-STD-1553B [obspm.fr].
This is basically a dual-redundant differential 1 Mb/s bus over a wire pair.
There's a single bus controller which initiates all the transactions, and up to 31 remote terminals which respond to the bus controller.
What is a bit surprising is that for military aircraft, current designs have been moving from 1553 to Firewire (which is plug and play).
So that may suggest that Firewire would be unsuitable for satellites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341334</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <br> <br>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  <br> <br> You don't need to be the <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amazing Kreskin</b> </a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  <br> <br> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  <br> <br> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  <br> <br> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
<br> <br> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  <br> <br> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  <br> <br> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying   
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be the  Amazing Kreskin  [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341404</id>
	<title>Re:$500,000 or $200,000,000 ?! Which is it ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that it's both.</p><p>The government isn't going to give you $200 million up front. Most likely, it's $500k for the initial phase (whatever that may include) and possibly up to $200 million depending on progress/success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that it 's both.The government is n't going to give you $ 200 million up front .
Most likely , it 's $ 500k for the initial phase ( whatever that may include ) and possibly up to $ 200 million depending on progress/success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that it's both.The government isn't going to give you $200 million up front.
Most likely, it's $500k for the initial phase (whatever that may include) and possibly up to $200 million depending on progress/success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30343208</id>
	<title>Basic Premise of Article</title>
	<author>jesusfr3Ak</author>
	<datestamp>1260115500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just curious, but has anyone else taken a step back and wondered *why* the USAF needs to build satellites more quickly?  In reality, they are probably just planning ahead for when giant satellite killing lasers litter the ground and they start dropping like flies (or whatever else the planners have come up with).  If this trend continues, will we launch fleets of these things? We already have a pretty large <a href="http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2009/02/19-002.php" title="utdallas.edu" rel="nofollow"> cloud of sattelites </a> [utdallas.edu] orbiting the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious , but has anyone else taken a step back and wondered * why * the USAF needs to build satellites more quickly ?
In reality , they are probably just planning ahead for when giant satellite killing lasers litter the ground and they start dropping like flies ( or whatever else the planners have come up with ) .
If this trend continues , will we launch fleets of these things ?
We already have a pretty large cloud of sattelites [ utdallas.edu ] orbiting the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious, but has anyone else taken a step back and wondered *why* the USAF needs to build satellites more quickly?
In reality, they are probably just planning ahead for when giant satellite killing lasers litter the ground and they start dropping like flies (or whatever else the planners have come up with).
If this trend continues, will we launch fleets of these things?
We already have a pretty large  cloud of sattelites  [utdallas.edu] orbiting the earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576</id>
	<title>here's a crazy question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be too much to ask, that this bus conform to an openly-specified standard, <i>e.g.</i>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishbone\_(computer\_bus)" title="wikipedia.org">Wishbone</a> [wikipedia.org]?<br> <br>

I'm not saying it <i>has</i> to be Wishbone. I'm just thinking that it might be nice to avoid re-inventing the wheel. This could also have the side-effect of lowering the cost to the government (and the taxpayer who actually pays for it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be too much to ask , that this bus conform to an openly-specified standard , e.g. , Wishbone [ wikipedia.org ] ?
I 'm not saying it has to be Wishbone .
I 'm just thinking that it might be nice to avoid re-inventing the wheel .
This could also have the side-effect of lowering the cost to the government ( and the taxpayer who actually pays for it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be too much to ask, that this bus conform to an openly-specified standard, e.g., Wishbone [wikipedia.org]?
I'm not saying it has to be Wishbone.
I'm just thinking that it might be nice to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
This could also have the side-effect of lowering the cost to the government (and the taxpayer who actually pays for it).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342070</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All their hardware will be using a single bus, meaning that anything that compromises that bus can compromise any of their equipment. Was the guy who designed this, by any chance, a long haired British man whose sleeping with a stunning blonde who asks a lot of questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All their hardware will be using a single bus , meaning that anything that compromises that bus can compromise any of their equipment .
Was the guy who designed this , by any chance , a long haired British man whose sleeping with a stunning blonde who asks a lot of questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All their hardware will be using a single bus, meaning that anything that compromises that bus can compromise any of their equipment.
Was the guy who designed this, by any chance, a long haired British man whose sleeping with a stunning blonde who asks a lot of questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341240</id>
	<title>Starcraft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>read that as "starcraft", way more amusing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>read that as " starcraft " , way more amusing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read that as "starcraft", way more amusing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341848</id>
	<title>odd analogy</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1260091080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why liken it to a laptop, when desktops have been using buses to allow major components to be easily changed for decades. Even apple products used to be able to do it (maybe some of them still can, I wouldn't know).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why liken it to a laptop , when desktops have been using buses to allow major components to be easily changed for decades .
Even apple products used to be able to do it ( maybe some of them still can , I would n't know ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why liken it to a laptop, when desktops have been using buses to allow major components to be easily changed for decades.
Even apple products used to be able to do it (maybe some of them still can, I wouldn't know).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341824</id>
	<title>I can't see a problem with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260090480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are using the latest edition of Windows ME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are using the latest edition of Windows ME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are using the latest edition of Windows ME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30345848</id>
	<title>How about "flies-for-sure"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260094020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could provide "flies-for-sure", modeled after Microsoft's highly "plays-for-sure-except-on-new-years'-eve-and-on-unsupported-players" system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could provide " flies-for-sure " , modeled after Microsoft 's highly " plays-for-sure-except-on-new-years'-eve-and-on-unsupported-players " system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could provide "flies-for-sure", modeled after Microsoft's highly "plays-for-sure-except-on-new-years'-eve-and-on-unsupported-players" system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341294</id>
	<title>This for the Ancient, asgard, Goa'uld and typ tech</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260037440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This for the Ancient, asgard, Goa'uld and types of non earth tech</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This for the Ancient , asgard , Goa'uld and types of non earth tech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This for the Ancient, asgard, Goa'uld and types of non earth tech</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341360</id>
	<title>Re:$500,000 or $200,000,000 ?! Which is it ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a question of how government contracts are awarded. They typically will have at least two things for each contract:  the amount of money on the contract and the contract ceiling. The amount on the contract is the amount the company actually has in their accounts to spend. the ceiling is more like a "credit limit" which says the maximum amount of money the AF *can* ever put on the contract.

Hope that explanation helps some.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a question of how government contracts are awarded .
They typically will have at least two things for each contract : the amount of money on the contract and the contract ceiling .
The amount on the contract is the amount the company actually has in their accounts to spend .
the ceiling is more like a " credit limit " which says the maximum amount of money the AF * can * ever put on the contract .
Hope that explanation helps some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a question of how government contracts are awarded.
They typically will have at least two things for each contract:  the amount of money on the contract and the contract ceiling.
The amount on the contract is the amount the company actually has in their accounts to spend.
the ceiling is more like a "credit limit" which says the maximum amount of money the AF *can* ever put on the contract.
Hope that explanation helps some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341374</id>
	<title>Re:$500,000 or $200,000,000 ?! Which is it ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a "ceiling" means that the project managers on both sides will ensure that at least that amount is spent, then late change requests may push the final tally arbitrarily higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a " ceiling " means that the project managers on both sides will ensure that at least that amount is spent , then late change requests may push the final tally arbitrarily higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a "ceiling" means that the project managers on both sides will ensure that at least that amount is spent, then late change requests may push the final tally arbitrarily higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341678</id>
	<title>Still, though...</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1260130620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typically one makes 2-3 satellites at a time; all are meant to be identical in case it's necessary to compare the two for repair. But completely forgetting the invention of interchangable parts, satellites seem to be *very* proprietary.</p><p>Ya think computers are bad about that? I'd rather have computers- at least they have PCI/AGP/PCI-Express busses, where satellites tend to be very unique, I'm told.</p><p>What processes *doesn't* improve when you make units from similar, interchangable parts?  Would we have computers on so many desks if they weren't at least a little interchangable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically one makes 2-3 satellites at a time ; all are meant to be identical in case it 's necessary to compare the two for repair .
But completely forgetting the invention of interchangable parts , satellites seem to be * very * proprietary.Ya think computers are bad about that ?
I 'd rather have computers- at least they have PCI/AGP/PCI-Express busses , where satellites tend to be very unique , I 'm told.What processes * does n't * improve when you make units from similar , interchangable parts ?
Would we have computers on so many desks if they were n't at least a little interchangable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically one makes 2-3 satellites at a time; all are meant to be identical in case it's necessary to compare the two for repair.
But completely forgetting the invention of interchangable parts, satellites seem to be *very* proprietary.Ya think computers are bad about that?
I'd rather have computers- at least they have PCI/AGP/PCI-Express busses, where satellites tend to be very unique, I'm told.What processes *doesn't* improve when you make units from similar, interchangable parts?
Would we have computers on so many desks if they weren't at least a little interchangable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341350</id>
	<title>Power bus is what they call it now?</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1260038520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So to extend Plug-and-Play spacecraft, they're paying $500,000 for a really long extension cord?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to extend Plug-and-Play spacecraft , they 're paying $ 500,000 for a really long extension cord ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to extend Plug-and-Play spacecraft, they're paying $500,000 for a really long extension cord?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342484</id>
	<title>PnP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just plug it in... it's going to say "Hey I see you plugged in a new device," and it's going to load in the appropriate drivers...you'll notice that this satellite will... whoa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just plug it in... it 's going to say " Hey I see you plugged in a new device , " and it 's going to load in the appropriate drivers...you 'll notice that this satellite will... whoa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just plug it in... it's going to say "Hey I see you plugged in a new device," and it's going to load in the appropriate drivers...you'll notice that this satellite will... whoa!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30343304</id>
	<title>The why is almost more interesting than the how</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1260116580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously lowering cost is a good thing, but not something the military is known for. I find it interesting that the big push in the military has been on for cheap and fast satellites (fast seems more important that cheap), since about 2005. That would be around the time the Chinese demonstrated their ability to kill space vehicles, and at the same time pollute the orbit with junk by doing it. It might also be needed in the case of things like solar flares that leave the military and critical civilian sats crippled.</p><p>The only solution is to be able to deploy on mass satellites cheaply and quickly as they are destroyed or knocked out.</p><p>I see one serious flaw in this strategy. They might be cheap now, but in a conflict with China those chips and components are not going to be so cheap anymore. The same might be said after a major solar flare, with everyone scrambling to rebuild fried technology.</p><p>This really should be a proper DARPA seeded contest for Universities and guys in their back yard or Open source it.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously lowering cost is a good thing , but not something the military is known for .
I find it interesting that the big push in the military has been on for cheap and fast satellites ( fast seems more important that cheap ) , since about 2005 .
That would be around the time the Chinese demonstrated their ability to kill space vehicles , and at the same time pollute the orbit with junk by doing it .
It might also be needed in the case of things like solar flares that leave the military and critical civilian sats crippled.The only solution is to be able to deploy on mass satellites cheaply and quickly as they are destroyed or knocked out.I see one serious flaw in this strategy .
They might be cheap now , but in a conflict with China those chips and components are not going to be so cheap anymore .
The same might be said after a major solar flare , with everyone scrambling to rebuild fried technology.This really should be a proper DARPA seeded contest for Universities and guys in their back yard or Open source it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously lowering cost is a good thing, but not something the military is known for.
I find it interesting that the big push in the military has been on for cheap and fast satellites (fast seems more important that cheap), since about 2005.
That would be around the time the Chinese demonstrated their ability to kill space vehicles, and at the same time pollute the orbit with junk by doing it.
It might also be needed in the case of things like solar flares that leave the military and critical civilian sats crippled.The only solution is to be able to deploy on mass satellites cheaply and quickly as they are destroyed or knocked out.I see one serious flaw in this strategy.
They might be cheap now, but in a conflict with China those chips and components are not going to be so cheap anymore.
The same might be said after a major solar flare, with everyone scrambling to rebuild fried technology.This really should be a proper DARPA seeded contest for Universities and guys in their back yard or Open source it.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341770</id>
	<title>USB Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260132660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should just use USB. I mean...it works, why spend another billion dollars to reinvent it?<br>And they could always use those cheap chinese webcams on the next generation airplanes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should just use USB .
I mean...it works , why spend another billion dollars to reinvent it ? And they could always use those cheap chinese webcams on the next generation airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should just use USB.
I mean...it works, why spend another billion dollars to reinvent it?And they could always use those cheap chinese webcams on the next generation airplanes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341410</id>
	<title>Just laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it odd that he specifically mentions "laptop computer" as if other kinds of computers can't do that too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that he specifically mentions " laptop computer " as if other kinds of computers ca n't do that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that he specifically mentions "laptop computer" as if other kinds of computers can't do that too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341270</id>
	<title>God bless the idiot-proof Air Force</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260037020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hapablap: Oh...not the Harrier!  We've got a war tomorrow.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Bob: [sees control panel with two buttons, STOP and FLY]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; God bless the idiot-proof Air Force.</p><p>He presses the FLY button, and the jet taxis forward into a ditch.<br>Sideshow Bob switches to the Wright Brothers plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hapablap : Oh...not the Harrier !
We 've got a war tomorrow .
          Bob : [ sees control panel with two buttons , STOP and FLY ]                     God bless the idiot-proof Air Force.He presses the FLY button , and the jet taxis forward into a ditch.Sideshow Bob switches to the Wright Brothers plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hapablap: Oh...not the Harrier!
We've got a war tomorrow.
          Bob: [sees control panel with two buttons, STOP and FLY]
                    God bless the idiot-proof Air Force.He presses the FLY button, and the jet taxis forward into a ditch.Sideshow Bob switches to the Wright Brothers plane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342650</id>
	<title>Found new hardware</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1260107220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apollo module.
<br>
<br>
Installing the software for your new Apollo module.
<br>
<br>
Your new Apollo module is installed.  You should restart your spaceship for the changes to take effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apollo module .
Installing the software for your new Apollo module .
Your new Apollo module is installed .
You should restart your spaceship for the changes to take effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apollo module.
Installing the software for your new Apollo module.
Your new Apollo module is installed.
You should restart your spaceship for the changes to take effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30348008</id>
	<title>In-car networks</title>
	<author>WarJolt</author>
	<datestamp>1260109140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Car companies have been developing car networks which would probably have similar requirements for satellites. Actuators and electrical control units are in cars and in satellites.</p><p>FlexRay is currently under development. With a few modifications I'm sure it could be adapted to work in a satellite.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRay" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRay</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Car companies have been developing car networks which would probably have similar requirements for satellites .
Actuators and electrical control units are in cars and in satellites.FlexRay is currently under development .
With a few modifications I 'm sure it could be adapted to work in a satellite.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRay [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Car companies have been developing car networks which would probably have similar requirements for satellites.
Actuators and electrical control units are in cars and in satellites.FlexRay is currently under development.
With a few modifications I'm sure it could be adapted to work in a satellite.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRay [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342758</id>
	<title>Re:$500,000 or $200,000,000 ?! Which is it ?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1260109500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people wonder why the credit crunch started in the US?</p><p>(No, this was not a comment directed towards the Air Force)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people wonder why the credit crunch started in the US ?
( No , this was not a comment directed towards the Air Force )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people wonder why the credit crunch started in the US?
(No, this was not a comment directed towards the Air Force)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341358</id>
	<title>Re:USB analogy is a big bogus</title>
	<author>ushering05401</author>
	<datestamp>1260038700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either I am way too far gone this evening, or there is something wrong with this article.  The system that is described is existing tech from the 'AFRL,'  a division of the U.S. Air Force.  The contract is described like so:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Northrop Grumman is expected at this point to deliver a study that will outline how the AFRL can reduce cost and develop future plug-and-play space systems.</p> </div><p>This does not equate to Northrop Grumman designing the next gen interface, it means they will be the consultants doing the position reviews on the AFRL personnel for the next downsizing, right?  I bet those Northrop G. folk like Michael Bolton... celebrate his entire body of work in fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either I am way too far gone this evening , or there is something wrong with this article .
The system that is described is existing tech from the 'AFRL, ' a division of the U.S. Air Force .
The contract is described like so : Northrop Grumman is expected at this point to deliver a study that will outline how the AFRL can reduce cost and develop future plug-and-play space systems .
This does not equate to Northrop Grumman designing the next gen interface , it means they will be the consultants doing the position reviews on the AFRL personnel for the next downsizing , right ?
I bet those Northrop G. folk like Michael Bolton... celebrate his entire body of work in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either I am way too far gone this evening, or there is something wrong with this article.
The system that is described is existing tech from the 'AFRL,'  a division of the U.S. Air Force.
The contract is described like so:Northrop Grumman is expected at this point to deliver a study that will outline how the AFRL can reduce cost and develop future plug-and-play space systems.
This does not equate to Northrop Grumman designing the next gen interface, it means they will be the consultants doing the position reviews on the AFRL personnel for the next downsizing, right?
I bet those Northrop G. folk like Michael Bolton... celebrate his entire body of work in fact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341246</id>
	<title>Drivers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With spacecraft, as with computers, you have to have the right drivers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I don't know, it was just an opportunity to get a first post...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With spacecraft , as with computers , you have to have the right drivers .
...I do n't know , it was just an opportunity to get a first post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With spacecraft, as with computers, you have to have the right drivers.
...I don't know, it was just an opportunity to get a first post...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30347828</id>
	<title>Re:USB analogy is a big bogus</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1260107820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why is linux.conf.au in New Zealand? Did I miss a memo?"</p><p>Yes. Please line up in an orderly fashion on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for assimilation into the Greater New Zealand Empire. Our trained keas and kakapos will be hovering nearby to assist you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why is linux.conf.au in New Zealand ?
Did I miss a memo ? " Yes .
Please line up in an orderly fashion on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for assimilation into the Greater New Zealand Empire .
Our trained keas and kakapos will be hovering nearby to assist you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why is linux.conf.au in New Zealand?
Did I miss a memo?"Yes.
Please line up in an orderly fashion on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for assimilation into the Greater New Zealand Empire.
Our trained keas and kakapos will be hovering nearby to assist you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341282</id>
	<title>Plug and Pray...</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1260037200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...never had so much meaning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...never had so much meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...never had so much meaning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342770</id>
	<title>Why not just USB and normal Networking?</title>
	<author>idigitallDotCom</author>
	<datestamp>1260109620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a reason they don't just use usb or normal networking? Perhaps I'm just trivializing space technology, but what's the difference between space computers and home computers [besides the fact they use real-time operating systems]? Surely that just means the computers never go to sleep?</p><p>I'm sure that technology already exists - so it just needs $200 Billion to test and make sure it works in space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a reason they do n't just use usb or normal networking ?
Perhaps I 'm just trivializing space technology , but what 's the difference between space computers and home computers [ besides the fact they use real-time operating systems ] ?
Surely that just means the computers never go to sleep ? I 'm sure that technology already exists - so it just needs $ 200 Billion to test and make sure it works in space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a reason they don't just use usb or normal networking?
Perhaps I'm just trivializing space technology, but what's the difference between space computers and home computers [besides the fact they use real-time operating systems]?
Surely that just means the computers never go to sleep?I'm sure that technology already exists - so it just needs $200 Billion to test and make sure it works in space?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342084</id>
	<title>Re:here's a crazy question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah lets open source everything when it makes no sense. faggot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah lets open source everything when it makes no sense .
faggot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah lets open source everything when it makes no sense.
faggot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342644</id>
	<title>me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260107040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what I will be doing? Ok? i am going to the site <a href="http://sectorobzora.ru/" title="sectorobzora.ru" rel="nofollow">sector obzora</a> [sectorobzora.ru]!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what I will be doing ?
Ok ? i am going to the site sector obzora [ sectorobzora.ru ] ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what I will be doing?
Ok? i am going to the site sector obzora [sectorobzora.ru]!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341366</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1260038760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only do they need to do this with spacecraft and satellites, they need to do it with weapons systems across the board.  Gun mounts, missile launchers, hard points, radar systems, everything.  Let the separate military branches keep their identity and mission focus, but make sure all the hardware they're using works together.

</p><p>An effort long overdue and a good place to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do they need to do this with spacecraft and satellites , they need to do it with weapons systems across the board .
Gun mounts , missile launchers , hard points , radar systems , everything .
Let the separate military branches keep their identity and mission focus , but make sure all the hardware they 're using works together .
An effort long overdue and a good place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do they need to do this with spacecraft and satellites, they need to do it with weapons systems across the board.
Gun mounts, missile launchers, hard points, radar systems, everything.
Let the separate military branches keep their identity and mission focus, but make sure all the hardware they're using works together.
An effort long overdue and a good place to start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244</id>
	<title>USB analogy is a big bogus</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260036660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They discuss having a standard power bus, and a tcp/ip LAN with something like a COTS router. So in fact its not plug and play like USB on a laptop it is plug and play like attaching your laptop to your LAN. It is exactly that.</p><p>I expect it will have a hard coded configuration with static IP addresses though. DHCP is a single point of failure and I don't think the complexity is justified here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They discuss having a standard power bus , and a tcp/ip LAN with something like a COTS router .
So in fact its not plug and play like USB on a laptop it is plug and play like attaching your laptop to your LAN .
It is exactly that.I expect it will have a hard coded configuration with static IP addresses though .
DHCP is a single point of failure and I do n't think the complexity is justified here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They discuss having a standard power bus, and a tcp/ip LAN with something like a COTS router.
So in fact its not plug and play like USB on a laptop it is plug and play like attaching your laptop to your LAN.
It is exactly that.I expect it will have a hard coded configuration with static IP addresses though.
DHCP is a single point of failure and I don't think the complexity is justified here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322</id>
	<title>$500,000 or $200,000,000 ?! Which is it ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This week it awarded a $500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft "bus"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $200 million.</p> </div><p>There is a pretty big difference between $500,000 and $200,000,000.  So which is it Air Force?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This week it awarded a $ 500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft " bus " ... The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $ 200 million .
There is a pretty big difference between $ 500,000 and $ 200,000,000 .
So which is it Air Force ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This week it awarded a $500,000 order to Northrop Grumman to begin designing the plug-and-play spacecraft "bus" ... The order was awarded under a contract that has a ceiling of $200 million.
There is a pretty big difference between $500,000 and $200,000,000.
So which is it Air Force?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30347828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_0247246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30347828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30342770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_0247246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_0247246.30341366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
