<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_01_024210</id>
	<title>Raise a Glass &mdash; Time(2) Turns 40 Tonight</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262360820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:ddt@davetaylor.name" rel="nofollow">ddt</a> writes <i>"Raise your glasses of champagne in a toast at midnight.  The time(2) system call <a href="http://indiegameproducer.com/2009/12/happy-40th-birthday-time2.html">turns 40 tonight</a>, and is now officially 'over the hill.'  It's been dutifully keeping track of time for clueful operating systems since January 1, 1970."</i> And speaking of time, if you don't have a *nix system handy, or just want a second opinion, an anonymous reader points out this <a href="http://joey.functionalperfection.com/">handy way to check</a> just how far it is after local midnight in Unix time. <strong>Updated 10:03 GMT by timothy:</strong> The Unix-time-in-a-browser link has been replaced by a Rick Astley video; you have been warned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ddt writes " Raise your glasses of champagne in a toast at midnight .
The time ( 2 ) system call turns 40 tonight , and is now officially 'over the hill .
' It 's been dutifully keeping track of time for clueful operating systems since January 1 , 1970 .
" And speaking of time , if you do n't have a * nix system handy , or just want a second opinion , an anonymous reader points out this handy way to check just how far it is after local midnight in Unix time .
Updated 10 : 03 GMT by timothy : The Unix-time-in-a-browser link has been replaced by a Rick Astley video ; you have been warned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ddt writes "Raise your glasses of champagne in a toast at midnight.
The time(2) system call turns 40 tonight, and is now officially 'over the hill.
'  It's been dutifully keeping track of time for clueful operating systems since January 1, 1970.
" And speaking of time, if you don't have a *nix system handy, or just want a second opinion, an anonymous reader points out this handy way to check just how far it is after local midnight in Unix time.
Updated 10:03 GMT by timothy: The Unix-time-in-a-browser link has been replaced by a Rick Astley video; you have been warned.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222</id>
	<title>It's not April 1 yet</title>
	<author>SpazmodeusG</author>
	<datestamp>1293814200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That second link is a Rick Roll.<br>
Did you even check it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That second link is a Rick Roll .
Did you even check it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That second link is a Rick Roll.
Did you even check it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612358</id>
	<title>That's funny,...</title>
	<author>Telecommando</author>
	<datestamp>1293816240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My clock says today is Setting Orange, Day 73 of the Aftermath in the Year of Our Lady of Discord 3175.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My clock says today is Setting Orange , Day 73 of the Aftermath in the Year of Our Lady of Discord 3175 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My clock says today is Setting Orange, Day 73 of the Aftermath in the Year of Our Lady of Discord 3175.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612750</id>
	<title>Re:Flash? Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293824520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes sense when the time hits midnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense when the time hits midnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense when the time hits midnight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540</id>
	<title>Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1293820380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is almost exactly as old as *nix time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is almost exactly as old as * nix time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is almost exactly as old as *nix time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612230</id>
	<title>Damn you Slashdot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293814260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rickrolling is so 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rickrolling is so 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rickrolling is so 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612270</id>
	<title>Re:Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1293814740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?</p></div><p>You have a promising career in middle management ahead of you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess ? You have a promising career in middle management ahead of you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?You have a promising career in middle management ahead of you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612220</id>
	<title>First Post!</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1293814140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a rickroll in article. Beware to click!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a rickroll in article .
Beware to click !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a rickroll in article.
Beware to click!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598</id>
	<title>Re:Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293821580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?</p> </div><p>I know the epoch was changed around a bit because early versions of the unix time system functioned at rates greater then 1hz, and hence would run out of room in the 32bit space really really fast.  I'm not sure why that particular date was the one they settled on, hopefully someone else can fill in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?</p></div><p>I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all.  The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch.  Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.  The 32bit limit on the counter is a problem, but that's another matter we can procrastinate on for another 25~30 years or so then panic at the last minute.  There's no reason for the Unix time stuff to change because other systems had date problems - if anything, it's more of a reason *not* to change since the system clearly works when others were failing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00 : 00 : 00 UTC on 1 January 1970 ?
I know the epoch was changed around a bit because early versions of the unix time system functioned at rates greater then 1hz , and hence would run out of room in the 32bit space really really fast .
I 'm not sure why that particular date was the one they settled on , hopefully someone else can fill in.Why did n't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess ? I 'm not 100 \ % on this , but I believe the Y2K mess did n't effect Unix-y systems at all .
The way Unix time works , if you 're not familiar , is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch .
Whether the year is represented as two of four digits does n't matter , and does n't cause problems .
The 32bit limit on the counter is a problem , but that 's another matter we can procrastinate on for another 25 ~ 30 years or so then panic at the last minute .
There 's no reason for the Unix time stuff to change because other systems had date problems - if anything , it 's more of a reason * not * to change since the system clearly works when others were failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?
I know the epoch was changed around a bit because early versions of the unix time system functioned at rates greater then 1hz, and hence would run out of room in the 32bit space really really fast.
I'm not sure why that particular date was the one they settled on, hopefully someone else can fill in.Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all.
The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch.
Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.
The 32bit limit on the counter is a problem, but that's another matter we can procrastinate on for another 25~30 years or so then panic at the last minute.
There's no reason for the Unix time stuff to change because other systems had date problems - if anything, it's more of a reason *not* to change since the system clearly works when others were failing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390</id>
	<title>Flash? Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293816900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for showing the epoch time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for showing the epoch time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for showing the epoch time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216</id>
	<title>Give it 28 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293814140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When time(2) turns 68, that will be newsworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When time ( 2 ) turns 68 , that will be newsworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When time(2) turns 68, that will be newsworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613378</id>
	<title>Perl version?</title>
	<author>rduke15</author>
	<datestamp>1262348280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool. But would someone please translate this obfuscated Ruby into some readable Perl?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
But would someone please translate this obfuscated Ruby into some readable Perl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
But would someone please translate this obfuscated Ruby into some readable Perl?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612292</id>
	<title>Why is there a link to this guy's blog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293815160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Unix time(2) system call is "over the hill" at 40 years old today. The time(2) system call has dutifully told us how many seconds have passed since January 1, 1970. I use the day as my "birthday" on public websites in tribute. Please raise a glass of champagne tonight with me in celebration!</p></div> </blockquote><p>Why is there a link in the summary to some guy's blog which says exactly what I've pasted above?  I mean really, just put the information in the summary without the link....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Unix time ( 2 ) system call is " over the hill " at 40 years old today .
The time ( 2 ) system call has dutifully told us how many seconds have passed since January 1 , 1970 .
I use the day as my " birthday " on public websites in tribute .
Please raise a glass of champagne tonight with me in celebration !
Why is there a link in the summary to some guy 's blog which says exactly what I 've pasted above ?
I mean really , just put the information in the summary without the link... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Unix time(2) system call is "over the hill" at 40 years old today.
The time(2) system call has dutifully told us how many seconds have passed since January 1, 1970.
I use the day as my "birthday" on public websites in tribute.
Please raise a glass of champagne tonight with me in celebration!
Why is there a link in the summary to some guy's blog which says exactly what I've pasted above?
I mean really, just put the information in the summary without the link....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612378</id>
	<title>Problem with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293816600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't really a valid birthday unless time() was actually compiled and run for the first time immediately after midnight on January 1, 1970. I mean, c'mon, are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl's localtime()?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really a valid birthday unless time ( ) was actually compiled and run for the first time immediately after midnight on January 1 , 1970 .
I mean , c'mon , are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl 's localtime ( ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really a valid birthday unless time() was actually compiled and run for the first time immediately after midnight on January 1, 1970.
I mean, c'mon, are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl's localtime()?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612898</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Christoph</author>
	<datestamp>1262338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am also "as old as time".</p><p>I turned 40 on 9-9-9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am also " as old as time " .I turned 40 on 9-9-9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am also "as old as time".I turned 40 on 9-9-9.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613056</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262341680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613412</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262349480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who is almost exactly as old as *nix time?</p></div><p>I'm sorry to tell you this but... 2038 is going to be a bad year for you.</p><p>I hope you find Hinduism interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is almost exactly as old as * nix time ? I 'm sorry to tell you this but... 2038 is going to be a bad year for you.I hope you find Hinduism interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is almost exactly as old as *nix time?I'm sorry to tell you this but... 2038 is going to be a bad year for you.I hope you find Hinduism interesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615120</id>
	<title>Re:Give it 28 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, thats only 30.998947 bits.  You really should be saying 68 years, 18 days, 3 hours, 14 minutes and 8 seconds.  (It came out to 7.999929427 seconds, so the 8th second should be the bad one).  Next, in 28 years, 32 bit systems will likely be antiques or landfill....err I mean recycled into 64 bit and 128 bit machines.  On 64 bit machines, its 292 billion+ years.  The sun will have eaten the earth by then, we would be off-planet and bringing ruin to the rest of the universe by then.  I've been on 64 bits exclusively for more than a year now.  I don't know if I'll go back to 32 bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , thats only 30.998947 bits .
You really should be saying 68 years , 18 days , 3 hours , 14 minutes and 8 seconds .
( It came out to 7.999929427 seconds , so the 8th second should be the bad one ) .
Next , in 28 years , 32 bit systems will likely be antiques or landfill....err I mean recycled into 64 bit and 128 bit machines .
On 64 bit machines , its 292 billion + years .
The sun will have eaten the earth by then , we would be off-planet and bringing ruin to the rest of the universe by then .
I 've been on 64 bits exclusively for more than a year now .
I do n't know if I 'll go back to 32 bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, thats only 30.998947 bits.
You really should be saying 68 years, 18 days, 3 hours, 14 minutes and 8 seconds.
(It came out to 7.999929427 seconds, so the 8th second should be the bad one).
Next, in 28 years, 32 bit systems will likely be antiques or landfill....err I mean recycled into 64 bit and 128 bit machines.
On 64 bit machines, its 292 billion+ years.
The sun will have eaten the earth by then, we would be off-planet and bringing ruin to the rest of the universe by then.
I've been on 64 bits exclusively for more than a year now.
I don't know if I'll go back to 32 bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612834</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1262337660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently Slashdot's version of time\_t had a year 2010 problem!</p><p>Happy new year anyway!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Slashdot 's version of time \ _t had a year 2010 problem ! Happy new year anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Slashdot's version of time\_t had a year 2010 problem!Happy new year anyway!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30619472</id>
	<title>Re:Flash? Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262367120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash because the page becomes a Rick Astley video if your computer's date is Jan 1st 2010 or later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash because the page becomes a Rick Astley video if your computer 's date is Jan 1st 2010 or later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash because the page becomes a Rick Astley video if your computer's date is Jan 1st 2010 or later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612306</id>
	<title>Some of us ...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1293815340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... just see this as the 40th anniversary of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix\_Epoch" title="wikipedia.org">Unix Epoch</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>... just see this as the 40th anniversary of the Unix Epoch [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just see this as the 40th anniversary of the Unix Epoch [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613028</id>
	<title>date +\%s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262341080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a *nix system, type "date +\%s" to see the number of seconds since the Unix epoch started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a * nix system , type " date + \ % s " to see the number of seconds since the Unix epoch started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a *nix system, type "date +\%s" to see the number of seconds since the Unix epoch started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613290</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there a link to this guy's blog?</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1262346360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I use the day as my "birthday" on public websites in tribute.</i></p><p>Wow. He is hardcore!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use the day as my " birthday " on public websites in tribute.Wow .
He is hardcore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use the day as my "birthday" on public websites in tribute.Wow.
He is hardcore!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612236</id>
	<title>Over the hill?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1293814320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I turn 45 this year you insensitive clod! Passing the top of the hill just means I am gaining momentum for the next climb, anyway.</p><p>BTW why does the summary point to a page which returns <br>
&nbsp; <tt>(54) Connection reset by peer</tt> <br>
&nbsp; Maybe the server is over the hill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I turn 45 this year you insensitive clod !
Passing the top of the hill just means I am gaining momentum for the next climb , anyway.BTW why does the summary point to a page which returns   ( 54 ) Connection reset by peer   Maybe the server is over the hill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I turn 45 this year you insensitive clod!
Passing the top of the hill just means I am gaining momentum for the next climb, anyway.BTW why does the summary point to a page which returns 
  (54) Connection reset by peer 
  Maybe the server is over the hill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612428</id>
	<title>Re:It's not April 1 yet</title>
	<author>FunPika</author>
	<datestamp>1293817800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just seriously set my clock ahead an hour...just to see if that was true. It is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just seriously set my clock ahead an hour...just to see if that was true .
It is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just seriously set my clock ahead an hour...just to see if that was true.
It is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30631630</id>
	<title>Re:Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1262533920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all. The way Unix time works,<br>&gt; if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch. Whether the year is represented as two<br>&gt; of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.</p><p>Remember all of the Perl-based CGI wishing you a Happy New Year on January 1, 19100? I have old books in a box somewhere from *1997* with sample code telling users to print "19" then append the year value. It affected lots of programs that used the Perl functions that returned bits and pieces of the date, instead of printing it as a complete whole (which handled things correctly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm not 100 \ % on this , but I believe the Y2K mess did n't effect Unix-y systems at all .
The way Unix time works , &gt; if you 're not familiar , is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch .
Whether the year is represented as two &gt; of four digits does n't matter , and does n't cause problems.Remember all of the Perl-based CGI wishing you a Happy New Year on January 1 , 19100 ?
I have old books in a box somewhere from * 1997 * with sample code telling users to print " 19 " then append the year value .
It affected lots of programs that used the Perl functions that returned bits and pieces of the date , instead of printing it as a complete whole ( which handled things correctly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all.
The way Unix time works,&gt; if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch.
Whether the year is represented as two&gt; of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.Remember all of the Perl-based CGI wishing you a Happy New Year on January 1, 19100?
I have old books in a box somewhere from *1997* with sample code telling users to print "19" then append the year value.
It affected lots of programs that used the Perl functions that returned bits and pieces of the date, instead of printing it as a complete whole (which handled things correctly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30614024</id>
	<title>Re:It's not April 1 yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262360820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very funny.</p><p>You know, a plugin for that would probably be popular, but, wow, would it spoil the fun.</p><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6927" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">This</a> [mozilla.org] is the closest I found.  And look -- it's a link that points to mozilla.org.  I couldn't have spoofed that.  Go ahead.  Click on it.  Really.  You can trust me.  It's even https:</p><p>Although I will admit that I haven't tried the plugin yet myself.  There's something about it that makes me worry it might replace ALL links with rickrolls, or something more subtly devious (e.g., do that only on April 1st, or only after midnight and before 6am).  I'll need to look at the code first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very funny.You know , a plugin for that would probably be popular , but , wow , would it spoil the fun.This [ mozilla.org ] is the closest I found .
And look -- it 's a link that points to mozilla.org .
I could n't have spoofed that .
Go ahead .
Click on it .
Really. You can trust me .
It 's even https : Although I will admit that I have n't tried the plugin yet myself .
There 's something about it that makes me worry it might replace ALL links with rickrolls , or something more subtly devious ( e.g. , do that only on April 1st , or only after midnight and before 6am ) .
I 'll need to look at the code first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very funny.You know, a plugin for that would probably be popular, but, wow, would it spoil the fun.This [mozilla.org] is the closest I found.
And look -- it's a link that points to mozilla.org.
I couldn't have spoofed that.
Go ahead.
Click on it.
Really.  You can trust me.
It's even https:Although I will admit that I haven't tried the plugin yet myself.
There's something about it that makes me worry it might replace ALL links with rickrolls, or something more subtly devious (e.g., do that only on April 1st, or only after midnight and before 6am).
I'll need to look at the code first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558</id>
	<title>Re:Over the hill?</title>
	<author>multi io</author>
	<datestamp>1293820680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Decimal jubilees are meaningless. time(2) has passed the top of the hill almost six years ago!<blockquote><div><p> <tt>$ TZ=GMT ruby -e '((0..29).map{|bit| 1&lt;&lt;bit} + (0..30).to\_a.reverse.map{|bit| (1&lt;&lt;31) - (1&lt;&lt;bit)}).each{|t| puts "\%031b \%s" \% [t, Time.at(t)]}'<br>0000000000000000000000000000001 Thu Jan 01 00:00:01 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000000000010 Thu Jan 01 00:00:02 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000000000100 Thu Jan 01 00:00:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000000001000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:08 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000000010000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:16 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000000100000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:32 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000001000000 Thu Jan 01 00:01:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000010000000 Thu Jan 01 00:02:08 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000000100000000 Thu Jan 01 00:04:16 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000001000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:08:32 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000010000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:17:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000000100000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:34:08 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000001000000000000 Thu Jan 01 01:08:16 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000010000000000000 Thu Jan 01 02:16:32 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000000100000000000000 Thu Jan 01 04:33:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000001000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 09:06:08 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000010000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 18:12:16 +0000 1970<br>0000000000000100000000000000000 Fri Jan 02 12:24:32 +0000 1970<br>0000000000001000000000000000000 Sun Jan 04 00:49:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000000010000000000000000000 Wed Jan 07 01:38:08 +0000 1970<br>0000000000100000000000000000000 Tue Jan 13 03:16:16 +0000 1970<br>0000000001000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 25 06:32:32 +0000 1970<br>0000000010000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 18 13:05:04 +0000 1970<br>0000000100000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 08 02:10:08 +0000 1970<br>0000001000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 14 04:20:16 +0000 1970<br>0000010000000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 24 08:40:32 +0000 1971<br>0000100000000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 16 17:21:04 +0000 1972<br>0001000000000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 03 10:42:08 +0000 1974<br>0010000000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 04 21:24:16 +0000 1978<br>0100000000000000000000000000000 Mon Jan 05 18:48:32 +0000 1987<br>1000000000000000000000000000000 Sat Jan 10 13:37:04 +0000 2004<br>1100000000000000000000000000000 Thu Jan 14 08:25:36 +0000 2021<br>1110000000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 18 05:49:52 +0000 2029<br>1111000000000000000000000000000 Tue Oct 18 16:32:00 +0000 2033<br>1111100000000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 04 09:53:04 +0000 2035<br>1111110000000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 26 18:33:36 +0000 2036<br>1111111000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 08 22:53:52 +0000 2037<br>1111111100000000000000000000000 Wed Oct 14 01:04:00 +0000 2037<br>1111111110000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 01 14:09:04 +0000 2037<br>1111111111000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 25 20:41:36 +0000 2037<br>1111111111100000000000000000000 Wed Jan 06 23:57:52 +0000 2038<br>1111111111110000000000000000000 Wed Jan 13 01:36:00 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111000000000000000000 Sat Jan 16 02:25:04 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111100000000000000000 Sun Jan 17 14:49:36 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111110000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 09:01:52 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 18:08:00 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111100000000000000 Mon Jan 18 22:41:04 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111110000000000000 Tue Jan 19 00:57:36 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111000000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:05:52 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111100000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:40:00 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111110000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:57:04 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111000000000 Tue Jan 19 03:05:36 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111100000000 Tue Jan 19 03:09:52 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111110000000 Tue Jan 19 03:12:00 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111000000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:04 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111100000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:36 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111110000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:52 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111111000 Tue Jan 19 03:14:00 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111111100 Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111111110 Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 +0000 2038<br>1111111111111111111111111111111 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 +0000 2038<br>$</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>So there!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Decimal jubilees are meaningless .
time ( 2 ) has passed the top of the hill almost six years ago !
$ TZ = GMT ruby -e ' ( ( 0..29 ) .map { | bit | 10000000000000000000000000000001 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 01 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000000000010 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 02 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000000000100 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 04 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000000001000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 08 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000000010000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 16 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000000100000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 00 : 32 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000001000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 01 : 04 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000010000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 02 : 08 + 0000 19700000000000000000000000100000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 04 : 16 + 0000 19700000000000000000000001000000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 08 : 32 + 0000 19700000000000000000000010000000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 17 : 04 + 0000 19700000000000000000000100000000000 Thu Jan 01 00 : 34 : 08 + 0000 19700000000000000000001000000000000 Thu Jan 01 01 : 08 : 16 + 0000 19700000000000000000010000000000000 Thu Jan 01 02 : 16 : 32 + 0000 19700000000000000000100000000000000 Thu Jan 01 04 : 33 : 04 + 0000 19700000000000000001000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 09 : 06 : 08 + 0000 19700000000000000010000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 18 : 12 : 16 + 0000 19700000000000000100000000000000000 Fri Jan 02 12 : 24 : 32 + 0000 19700000000000001000000000000000000 Sun Jan 04 00 : 49 : 04 + 0000 19700000000000010000000000000000000 Wed Jan 07 01 : 38 : 08 + 0000 19700000000000100000000000000000000 Tue Jan 13 03 : 16 : 16 + 0000 19700000000001000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 25 06 : 32 : 32 + 0000 19700000000010000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 18 13 : 05 : 04 + 0000 19700000000100000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 08 02 : 10 : 08 + 0000 19700000001000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 14 04 : 20 : 16 + 0000 19700000010000000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 24 08 : 40 : 32 + 0000 19710000100000000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 16 17 : 21 : 04 + 0000 19720001000000000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 03 10 : 42 : 08 + 0000 19740010000000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 04 21 : 24 : 16 + 0000 19780100000000000000000000000000000 Mon Jan 05 18 : 48 : 32 + 0000 19871000000000000000000000000000000 Sat Jan 10 13 : 37 : 04 + 0000 20041100000000000000000000000000000 Thu Jan 14 08 : 25 : 36 + 0000 20211110000000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 18 05 : 49 : 52 + 0000 20291111000000000000000000000000000 Tue Oct 18 16 : 32 : 00 + 0000 20331111100000000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 04 09 : 53 : 04 + 0000 20351111110000000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 26 18 : 33 : 36 + 0000 20361111111000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 08 22 : 53 : 52 + 0000 20371111111100000000000000000000000 Wed Oct 14 01 : 04 : 00 + 0000 20371111111110000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 01 14 : 09 : 04 + 0000 20371111111111000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 25 20 : 41 : 36 + 0000 20371111111111100000000000000000000 Wed Jan 06 23 : 57 : 52 + 0000 20381111111111110000000000000000000 Wed Jan 13 01 : 36 : 00 + 0000 20381111111111111000000000000000000 Sat Jan 16 02 : 25 : 04 + 0000 20381111111111111100000000000000000 Sun Jan 17 14 : 49 : 36 + 0000 20381111111111111110000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 09 : 01 : 52 + 0000 20381111111111111111000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 18 : 08 : 00 + 0000 20381111111111111111100000000000000 Mon Jan 18 22 : 41 : 04 + 0000 20381111111111111111110000000000000 Tue Jan 19 00 : 57 : 36 + 0000 20381111111111111111111000000000000 Tue Jan 19 02 : 05 : 52 + 0000 20381111111111111111111100000000000 Tue Jan 19 02 : 40 : 00 + 0000 20381111111111111111111110000000000 Tue Jan 19 02 : 57 : 04 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111000000000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 05 : 36 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111100000000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 09 : 52 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111110000000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 12 : 00 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111000000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 13 : 04 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111100000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 13 : 36 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111110000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 13 : 52 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111111000 Tue Jan 19 03 : 14 : 00 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111111100 Tue Jan 19 03 : 14 : 04 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111111110 Tue Jan 19 03 : 14 : 06 + 0000 20381111111111111111111111111111111 Tue Jan 19 03 : 14 : 07 + 0000 2038 $ So there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decimal jubilees are meaningless.
time(2) has passed the top of the hill almost six years ago!
$ TZ=GMT ruby -e '((0..29).map{|bit| 10000000000000000000000000000001 Thu Jan 01 00:00:01 +0000 19700000000000000000000000000000010 Thu Jan 01 00:00:02 +0000 19700000000000000000000000000000100 Thu Jan 01 00:00:04 +0000 19700000000000000000000000000001000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:08 +0000 19700000000000000000000000000010000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:16 +0000 19700000000000000000000000000100000 Thu Jan 01 00:00:32 +0000 19700000000000000000000000001000000 Thu Jan 01 00:01:04 +0000 19700000000000000000000000010000000 Thu Jan 01 00:02:08 +0000 19700000000000000000000000100000000 Thu Jan 01 00:04:16 +0000 19700000000000000000000001000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:08:32 +0000 19700000000000000000000010000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:17:04 +0000 19700000000000000000000100000000000 Thu Jan 01 00:34:08 +0000 19700000000000000000001000000000000 Thu Jan 01 01:08:16 +0000 19700000000000000000010000000000000 Thu Jan 01 02:16:32 +0000 19700000000000000000100000000000000 Thu Jan 01 04:33:04 +0000 19700000000000000001000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 09:06:08 +0000 19700000000000000010000000000000000 Thu Jan 01 18:12:16 +0000 19700000000000000100000000000000000 Fri Jan 02 12:24:32 +0000 19700000000000001000000000000000000 Sun Jan 04 00:49:04 +0000 19700000000000010000000000000000000 Wed Jan 07 01:38:08 +0000 19700000000000100000000000000000000 Tue Jan 13 03:16:16 +0000 19700000000001000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 25 06:32:32 +0000 19700000000010000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 18 13:05:04 +0000 19700000000100000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 08 02:10:08 +0000 19700000001000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 14 04:20:16 +0000 19700000010000000000000000000000000 Sun Jan 24 08:40:32 +0000 19710000100000000000000000000000000 Wed Feb 16 17:21:04 +0000 19720001000000000000000000000000000 Wed Apr 03 10:42:08 +0000 19740010000000000000000000000000000 Tue Jul 04 21:24:16 +0000 19780100000000000000000000000000000 Mon Jan 05 18:48:32 +0000 19871000000000000000000000000000000 Sat Jan 10 13:37:04 +0000 20041100000000000000000000000000000 Thu Jan 14 08:25:36 +0000 20211110000000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 18 05:49:52 +0000 20291111000000000000000000000000000 Tue Oct 18 16:32:00 +0000 20331111100000000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 04 09:53:04 +0000 20351111110000000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 26 18:33:36 +0000 20361111111000000000000000000000000 Wed Jul 08 22:53:52 +0000 20371111111100000000000000000000000 Wed Oct 14 01:04:00 +0000 20371111111110000000000000000000000 Tue Dec 01 14:09:04 +0000 20371111111111000000000000000000000 Fri Dec 25 20:41:36 +0000 20371111111111100000000000000000000 Wed Jan 06 23:57:52 +0000 20381111111111110000000000000000000 Wed Jan 13 01:36:00 +0000 20381111111111111000000000000000000 Sat Jan 16 02:25:04 +0000 20381111111111111100000000000000000 Sun Jan 17 14:49:36 +0000 20381111111111111110000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 09:01:52 +0000 20381111111111111111000000000000000 Mon Jan 18 18:08:00 +0000 20381111111111111111100000000000000 Mon Jan 18 22:41:04 +0000 20381111111111111111110000000000000 Tue Jan 19 00:57:36 +0000 20381111111111111111111000000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:05:52 +0000 20381111111111111111111100000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:40:00 +0000 20381111111111111111111110000000000 Tue Jan 19 02:57:04 +0000 20381111111111111111111111000000000 Tue Jan 19 03:05:36 +0000 20381111111111111111111111100000000 Tue Jan 19 03:09:52 +0000 20381111111111111111111111110000000 Tue Jan 19 03:12:00 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111000000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:04 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111100000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:36 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111110000 Tue Jan 19 03:13:52 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111111000 Tue Jan 19 03:14:00 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111111100 Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111111110 Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 +0000 20381111111111111111111111111111111 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 +0000 2038$ So there!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612758</id>
	<title>Re:Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1293824760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all. The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch. Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.</p></div><p>Yes, assuming well-behaved programs. But it is a fact that Y2K doesn't affect this particular interface at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not 100 \ % on this , but I believe the Y2K mess did n't effect Unix-y systems at all .
The way Unix time works , if you 're not familiar , is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch .
Whether the year is represented as two of four digits does n't matter , and does n't cause problems.Yes , assuming well-behaved programs .
But it is a fact that Y2K does n't affect this particular interface at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not 100\% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all.
The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch.
Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems.Yes, assuming well-behaved programs.
But it is a fact that Y2K doesn't affect this particular interface at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30628640</id>
	<title>Re:Give it 28 years</title>
	<author>MobyTurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1262446800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's depressing, I'm 40 since August 2009, which makes me older than time(2).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's depressing , I 'm 40 since August 2009 , which makes me older than time ( 2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's depressing, I'm 40 since August 2009, which makes me older than time(2).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615748</id>
	<title>Re:Over the hill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262379420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a lot of code that can be done with the following:</p><p>$<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(){<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|:&amp; };:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a lot of code that can be done with the following : $ : ( ) { : | : &amp; } ; :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a lot of code that can be done with the following:$ :(){ :|:&amp; };:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612500</id>
	<title>Re:It's not April 1 yet</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1293819120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should install the <a href="http://joey.functionalperfection.com/" title="functionalperfection.com">RickBlockPlus</a> [functionalperfection.com] browser addon to prevent this sort of thing happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should install the RickBlockPlus [ functionalperfection.com ] browser addon to prevent this sort of thing happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should install the RickBlockPlus [functionalperfection.com] browser addon to prevent this sort of thing happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612248</id>
	<title>Windows</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1293814560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Windows clock starts the second Gates stiffed IBM out of the DOS market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows clock starts the second Gates stiffed IBM out of the DOS market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows clock starts the second Gates stiffed IBM out of the DOS market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224</id>
	<title>Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>arnoldo.j.nunez</author>
	<datestamp>1293814200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?
<br>
Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00 : 00 : 00 UTC on 1 January 1970 ?
Why did n't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?
Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613106</id>
	<title>Never gonna do that again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262343120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, I couldn't get a couple of hours into the new decade without getting rolled. Nice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , I could n't get a couple of hours into the new decade without getting rolled .
Nice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, I couldn't get a couple of hours into the new decade without getting rolled.
Nice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612294</id>
	<title>Re:Unix epoch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293815220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because unix was invented in 1970?</htmltext>
<tokenext>because unix was invented in 1970 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because unix was invented in 1970?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612820</id>
	<title>Re:First Post!</title>
	<author>Neil Hodges</author>
	<datestamp>1262337360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with Rick Astley?  I've heard worse songs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with Rick Astley ?
I 've heard worse songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with Rick Astley?
I've heard worse songs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612452</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with this</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1293818340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean, c'mon, are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl's localtime()?</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know about you, but I'm ready to drink to that.</p><p>My wife and I opened a bottle of champagne a few hours ago, and she's fallen asleep after two glasses, the lightweight.  I had a double espresso with my pecan pie and now <i>I'm ready to friggin' rawk</i>!</p><p>After I submit this, I'm gonna go show some Borderlands weaklings <i>who's boss</i>.  Either that or finish the champagne and go watch the fireworks from my rooftop, naked.  It's -2 degrees F outside though, so maybe I ought to pull out the thermal merkin first.  I mean, subzero temperatures, nudity and high blood-alcohol level - what could possibly go wrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , c'mon , are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl 's localtime ( ) ? I do n't know about you , but I 'm ready to drink to that.My wife and I opened a bottle of champagne a few hours ago , and she 's fallen asleep after two glasses , the lightweight .
I had a double espresso with my pecan pie and now I 'm ready to friggin ' rawk ! After I submit this , I 'm gon na go show some Borderlands weaklings who 's boss .
Either that or finish the champagne and go watch the fireworks from my rooftop , naked .
It 's -2 degrees F outside though , so maybe I ought to pull out the thermal merkin first .
I mean , subzero temperatures , nudity and high blood-alcohol level - what could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, c'mon, are we supposed to also be celebrating the 190th birthday of perl's localtime()?I don't know about you, but I'm ready to drink to that.My wife and I opened a bottle of champagne a few hours ago, and she's fallen asleep after two glasses, the lightweight.
I had a double espresso with my pecan pie and now I'm ready to friggin' rawk!After I submit this, I'm gonna go show some Borderlands weaklings who's boss.
Either that or finish the champagne and go watch the fireworks from my rooftop, naked.
It's -2 degrees F outside though, so maybe I ought to pull out the thermal merkin first.
I mean, subzero temperatures, nudity and high blood-alcohol level - what could possibly go wrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613964</id>
	<title>Re:It's not April 1 yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262360040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you people.  It's just an alternative to the usual <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix\_time" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">UNIX epoch</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>time\_rickroll(2)  Unix Programmer's Manual  time\_rickroll(2)</p><p>NAME<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; time\_rickroll - get time since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whenever\_You\_Need\_Somebody" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">16 November, 1987</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>SYNOPSIS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; #include </p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; time\_t time\_rickroll(time\_t *t);</p><p>DESCRIPTION<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; time\_rickroll returns the time since the Astley Epoch (00:00:00 UTC, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whenever\_You\_Need\_Somebody" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">November 26, 1987</a> [wikipedia.org]) measured in seconds.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If t is non-NULL, the returned value is also stored in the memory pointed to by t.</p><p>RETURN VALUE<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On success, the value of time in seconds since the start of the Astley Epoch is returned.  On error,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ((time\_t)-1) is returned, and errno is set appropriately.</p><p>ERRORS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; EFAULT t points outside your accessible address space.</p><p>NOTES<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; See time(2) for limitations with regards to leap seconds and other matters of consistency.  In addition, the exact timing<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of release of "Never Gonna Give You Up" on November 26, 1987 is assumed to be 00:00:00 UTC on that date, even though<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it is unlikely that a midnight release party was held.  Some purists also believe that the correct Astley Epoch begins<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sometime in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">May 2007</a> [wikipedia.org], however the possibility exists of<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; earlier examples of rickrolling, but none can predate November 26, 1987, the Astley Epoch chosen here.</p><p>POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There have been scattered reports of a bug that affects video and sound output when this function is called.</p><p>SEE ALSO<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; date(1), time(2), time\_duckroll(2)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you people .
It 's just an alternative to the usual UNIX epoch [ wikipedia.org ] .time \ _rickroll ( 2 ) Unix Programmer 's Manual time \ _rickroll ( 2 ) NAME           time \ _rickroll - get time since 16 November , 1987 [ wikipedia.org ] .SYNOPSIS           # include           time \ _t time \ _rickroll ( time \ _t * t ) ; DESCRIPTION           time \ _rickroll returns the time since the Astley Epoch ( 00 : 00 : 00 UTC , November 26 , 1987 [ wikipedia.org ] ) measured in seconds .
          If t is non-NULL , the returned value is also stored in the memory pointed to by t.RETURN VALUE           On success , the value of time in seconds since the start of the Astley Epoch is returned .
On error ,           ( ( time \ _t ) -1 ) is returned , and errno is set appropriately.ERRORS           EFAULT t points outside your accessible address space.NOTES           See time ( 2 ) for limitations with regards to leap seconds and other matters of consistency .
In addition , the exact timing           of release of " Never Gon na Give You Up " on November 26 , 1987 is assumed to be 00 : 00 : 00 UTC on that date , even though           it is unlikely that a midnight release party was held .
Some purists also believe that the correct Astley Epoch begins           sometime in May 2007 [ wikipedia.org ] , however the possibility exists of           earlier examples of rickrolling , but none can predate November 26 , 1987 , the Astley Epoch chosen here.POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS           There have been scattered reports of a bug that affects video and sound output when this function is called.SEE ALSO           date ( 1 ) , time ( 2 ) , time \ _duckroll ( 2 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you people.
It's just an alternative to the usual UNIX epoch [wikipedia.org].time\_rickroll(2)  Unix Programmer's Manual  time\_rickroll(2)NAME
          time\_rickroll - get time since 16 November, 1987 [wikipedia.org].SYNOPSIS
          #include 
          time\_t time\_rickroll(time\_t *t);DESCRIPTION
          time\_rickroll returns the time since the Astley Epoch (00:00:00 UTC, November 26, 1987 [wikipedia.org]) measured in seconds.
          If t is non-NULL, the returned value is also stored in the memory pointed to by t.RETURN VALUE
          On success, the value of time in seconds since the start of the Astley Epoch is returned.
On error,
          ((time\_t)-1) is returned, and errno is set appropriately.ERRORS
          EFAULT t points outside your accessible address space.NOTES
          See time(2) for limitations with regards to leap seconds and other matters of consistency.
In addition, the exact timing
          of release of "Never Gonna Give You Up" on November 26, 1987 is assumed to be 00:00:00 UTC on that date, even though
          it is unlikely that a midnight release party was held.
Some purists also believe that the correct Astley Epoch begins
          sometime in May 2007 [wikipedia.org], however the possibility exists of
          earlier examples of rickrolling, but none can predate November 26, 1987, the Astley Epoch chosen here.POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS
          There have been scattered reports of a bug that affects video and sound output when this function is called.SEE ALSO
          date(1), time(2), time\_duckroll(2)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30614682</id>
	<title>Clueful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262368200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure a clueful operating system would have a way of representing dates before and after my lifetime, not just during it. And it would have a way to distinguish a likely date from an uninitialized timestamp. Seriously, 2038?</p><p>I think a clueful operating system would be able to represent all dates any regular person is liable to want to use for things like birthdays and anniversaries. And needless to say, millisecond granularity at least is a requirement. That way you can use a single date/time library for everything, instead of one for file times and another one or two for everything else.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure a clueful operating system would have a way of representing dates before and after my lifetime , not just during it .
And it would have a way to distinguish a likely date from an uninitialized timestamp .
Seriously , 2038 ? I think a clueful operating system would be able to represent all dates any regular person is liable to want to use for things like birthdays and anniversaries .
And needless to say , millisecond granularity at least is a requirement .
That way you can use a single date/time library for everything , instead of one for file times and another one or two for everything else.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure a clueful operating system would have a way of representing dates before and after my lifetime, not just during it.
And it would have a way to distinguish a likely date from an uninitialized timestamp.
Seriously, 2038?I think a clueful operating system would be able to represent all dates any regular person is liable to want to use for things like birthdays and anniversaries.
And needless to say, millisecond granularity at least is a requirement.
That way you can use a single date/time library for everything, instead of one for file times and another one or two for everything else.dom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612686</id>
	<title>YOU INSOENSITIVE CLOD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1293823080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and easy - only please moderate of bu51ness and were nullified by yes, I work for</htmltext>
<tokenext>and easy - only please moderate of bu51ness and were nullified by yes , I work for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and easy - only please moderate of bu51ness and were nullified by yes, I work for</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612396</id>
	<title>This is not true</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1293817260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epoch starts at January 1st, 1970, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix\_time#History" title="wikipedia.org">the system call itself was not around in 1970</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epoch starts at January 1st , 1970 , but the system call itself was not around in 1970 [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epoch starts at January 1st, 1970, but the system call itself was not around in 1970 [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30619472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30614024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30631630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_024210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30628640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30631630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30619472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30614682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30613964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30614024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30628640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30615120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_024210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_024210.30612230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
