<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_0018256</id>
	<title>Secret Service Runs At "Six Sixes" Availability</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267275360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>PCM2 writes <i>"ABC News is reporting that the US Secret Service is in <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-secret-service-outdated-computer-mainframe-system-1980s/story?id=9945663">dire need of server upgrades</a>. 'Currently, 42 mission-oriented applications run on a 1980s IBM mainframe with a 68 percent performance reliability rating,' says one leaked memo. That finding was the result of an NSA study commissioned by the Secret Service to evaluate the severity of their computer problems. Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who says he's had 'concern for a while' about the issue."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>PCM2 writes " ABC News is reporting that the US Secret Service is in dire need of server upgrades .
'Currently , 42 mission-oriented applications run on a 1980s IBM mainframe with a 68 percent performance reliability rating, ' says one leaked memo .
That finding was the result of an NSA study commissioned by the Secret Service to evaluate the severity of their computer problems .
Curiously , upgrades to the Service 's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut , who says he 's had 'concern for a while ' about the issue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PCM2 writes "ABC News is reporting that the US Secret Service is in dire need of server upgrades.
'Currently, 42 mission-oriented applications run on a 1980s IBM mainframe with a 68 percent performance reliability rating,' says one leaked memo.
That finding was the result of an NSA study commissioned by the Secret Service to evaluate the severity of their computer problems.
Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who says he's had 'concern for a while' about the issue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293486</id>
	<title>Re:1980's mainframe?</title>
	<author>Z\_A\_Commando</author>
	<datestamp>1267195020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only thing keeping them from upgrading was a "small consumer grade server" I'm pretty sure the NSA would have made one fall off the back of a truck and this would no longer be a problem.</p><p>The problem is more likely that the software running on the server is proprietary and closed-source, making upgrades incredibly expensive.  Far more expensive than the incremental upgrades that the system should have seen in the 20+ years that it's been in production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only thing keeping them from upgrading was a " small consumer grade server " I 'm pretty sure the NSA would have made one fall off the back of a truck and this would no longer be a problem.The problem is more likely that the software running on the server is proprietary and closed-source , making upgrades incredibly expensive .
Far more expensive than the incremental upgrades that the system should have seen in the 20 + years that it 's been in production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only thing keeping them from upgrading was a "small consumer grade server" I'm pretty sure the NSA would have made one fall off the back of a truck and this would no longer be a problem.The problem is more likely that the software running on the server is proprietary and closed-source, making upgrades incredibly expensive.
Far more expensive than the incremental upgrades that the system should have seen in the 20+ years that it's been in production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31301738</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The  $187 M  probably covers more than the hardware costs.  Upgrading any system let alone a 20 year old system is not as simple as replacing hardware and software.   I would also assume that they are also looking to enhance the system.    This means architects,  developers , testers and support personnel.   Oh, and all those personnel require security costs which drive the costs up.</p><p>As far as the $500 gov. hammer comment.  Quit the government bashing.  Most of the government projects are outsourced to large consulting corps that are well respected and have both private and govt. clients.  If you think private industry would run things better,  I have worked for large retail, banking and government consulting companies.  I can confirm that private industry also has double and triple digit million projects that often result in failure.   Yes,  large companies often absorb double and triple million digit projects without an impact to their stock price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The $ 187 M probably covers more than the hardware costs .
Upgrading any system let alone a 20 year old system is not as simple as replacing hardware and software .
I would also assume that they are also looking to enhance the system .
This means architects , developers , testers and support personnel .
Oh , and all those personnel require security costs which drive the costs up.As far as the $ 500 gov .
hammer comment .
Quit the government bashing .
Most of the government projects are outsourced to large consulting corps that are well respected and have both private and govt .
clients. If you think private industry would run things better , I have worked for large retail , banking and government consulting companies .
I can confirm that private industry also has double and triple digit million projects that often result in failure .
Yes , large companies often absorb double and triple million digit projects without an impact to their stock price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  $187 M  probably covers more than the hardware costs.
Upgrading any system let alone a 20 year old system is not as simple as replacing hardware and software.
I would also assume that they are also looking to enhance the system.
This means architects,  developers , testers and support personnel.
Oh, and all those personnel require security costs which drive the costs up.As far as the $500 gov.
hammer comment.
Quit the government bashing.
Most of the government projects are outsourced to large consulting corps that are well respected and have both private and govt.
clients.  If you think private industry would run things better,  I have worked for large retail, banking and government consulting companies.
I can confirm that private industry also has double and triple digit million projects that often result in failure.
Yes,  large companies often absorb double and triple million digit projects without an impact to their stock price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293898</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267198080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, let's do it again, and then later on we can do it once more.</p><p>Joe Lieberman is a lying bag of excrement, most likely is doing this as a pork project for his state and probably the underlying story is that there is no need to update the secrete service computer systems, at least no more than building that new F22, which politicians want to see built in their states anyway.</p><p>Money, it's about the money.  Lieberman is a pig and people who don't see it are blind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let 's do it again , and then later on we can do it once more.Joe Lieberman is a lying bag of excrement , most likely is doing this as a pork project for his state and probably the underlying story is that there is no need to update the secrete service computer systems , at least no more than building that new F22 , which politicians want to see built in their states anyway.Money , it 's about the money .
Lieberman is a pig and people who do n't see it are blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let's do it again, and then later on we can do it once more.Joe Lieberman is a lying bag of excrement, most likely is doing this as a pork project for his state and probably the underlying story is that there is no need to update the secrete service computer systems, at least no more than building that new F22, which politicians want to see built in their states anyway.Money, it's about the money.
Lieberman is a pig and people who don't see it are blind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293292</id>
	<title>Two Satans</title>
	<author>bathmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1267193820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, 6 sixes, that is like running at two satans...  That's a lot</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , 6 sixes , that is like running at two satans... That 's a lot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, 6 sixes, that is like running at two satans...  That's a lot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should just flip the availability numbers over and get rid of the decimal. "Sir, its not 66.. its 99! You have it upside down!" -- Fixed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should just flip the availability numbers over and get rid of the decimal .
" Sir , its not 66.. its 99 !
You have it upside down !
" -- Fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should just flip the availability numbers over and get rid of the decimal.
"Sir, its not 66.. its 99!
You have it upside down!
" -- Fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297086</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267290900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>      As has been noted in previous posts, newer IBM hardware runs the older software, so it shouldn't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you think it's that simple, you've never had to use it...</p><p>There's something like 10 different levels of issues with running old programs on a newer mainframe.</p><p>The old OS may not run on a newer mainframe.  Perhaps because of devices that weren't available a half century ago, or what-not.</p><p>Even if IBM was so nice as to add that support to a slightly newer version of the same (old) OS, it doesn't guarantee that it won't have been changed enough that your old, very low-level programs just don't quite run right.</p><p>And even if they do, we're talking about the days when the simplest changes to an application typically require recompiling a binary.</p><p>The compiler originally used may be available for the newer system, but have a few subtle differences that make it not quite work.</p><p>A just-slightly-newer compiler may be the only thing available, and it will have changed significantly enough to ensure several of your old programs won't compile.</p><p>And don't dare mention IBM support.  They're HEAVILY geared towards newer equipment.  They don't have top-experts in each and every version of each and every bit of obsolete software just lying around, waiting for you to call.</p><p>Now, maybe if the government threw enough money at IBM, they might perform better, but I have a hard time seeing it even then.  We certainly pay them several times more than the combined salaries of the handful of mainframe experts in the company, all for the one problem that crops up every 5 years, and all the support we ever get is: "Try a newer version.  No good?  Well feature X was depreciated when this program was written 40 years ago, and is now unsupported."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been noted in previous posts , newer IBM hardware runs the older software , so it should n't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here.If you think it 's that simple , you 've never had to use it...There 's something like 10 different levels of issues with running old programs on a newer mainframe.The old OS may not run on a newer mainframe .
Perhaps because of devices that were n't available a half century ago , or what-not.Even if IBM was so nice as to add that support to a slightly newer version of the same ( old ) OS , it does n't guarantee that it wo n't have been changed enough that your old , very low-level programs just do n't quite run right.And even if they do , we 're talking about the days when the simplest changes to an application typically require recompiling a binary.The compiler originally used may be available for the newer system , but have a few subtle differences that make it not quite work.A just-slightly-newer compiler may be the only thing available , and it will have changed significantly enough to ensure several of your old programs wo n't compile.And do n't dare mention IBM support .
They 're HEAVILY geared towards newer equipment .
They do n't have top-experts in each and every version of each and every bit of obsolete software just lying around , waiting for you to call.Now , maybe if the government threw enough money at IBM , they might perform better , but I have a hard time seeing it even then .
We certainly pay them several times more than the combined salaries of the handful of mainframe experts in the company , all for the one problem that crops up every 5 years , and all the support we ever get is : " Try a newer version .
No good ?
Well feature X was depreciated when this program was written 40 years ago , and is now unsupported .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      As has been noted in previous posts, newer IBM hardware runs the older software, so it shouldn't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here.If you think it's that simple, you've never had to use it...There's something like 10 different levels of issues with running old programs on a newer mainframe.The old OS may not run on a newer mainframe.
Perhaps because of devices that weren't available a half century ago, or what-not.Even if IBM was so nice as to add that support to a slightly newer version of the same (old) OS, it doesn't guarantee that it won't have been changed enough that your old, very low-level programs just don't quite run right.And even if they do, we're talking about the days when the simplest changes to an application typically require recompiling a binary.The compiler originally used may be available for the newer system, but have a few subtle differences that make it not quite work.A just-slightly-newer compiler may be the only thing available, and it will have changed significantly enough to ensure several of your old programs won't compile.And don't dare mention IBM support.
They're HEAVILY geared towards newer equipment.
They don't have top-experts in each and every version of each and every bit of obsolete software just lying around, waiting for you to call.Now, maybe if the government threw enough money at IBM, they might perform better, but I have a hard time seeing it even then.
We certainly pay them several times more than the combined salaries of the handful of mainframe experts in the company, all for the one problem that crops up every 5 years, and all the support we ever get is: "Try a newer version.
No good?
Well feature X was depreciated when this program was written 40 years ago, and is now unsupported.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294896</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's probably an emulator for it and it will most likely run on an Intel box. IBM seems to either have some proprietary solution or an Intel box made specifically for it but last I was around old metal they would only lease it and the box was made a tad difficult to open without keys and tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's probably an emulator for it and it will most likely run on an Intel box .
IBM seems to either have some proprietary solution or an Intel box made specifically for it but last I was around old metal they would only lease it and the box was made a tad difficult to open without keys and tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's probably an emulator for it and it will most likely run on an Intel box.
IBM seems to either have some proprietary solution or an Intel box made specifically for it but last I was around old metal they would only lease it and the box was made a tad difficult to open without keys and tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293940</id>
	<title>I gots one to spare</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1267198560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like they could have my spare dual core desktop and it would be an improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they could have my spare dual core desktop and it would be an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they could have my spare dual core desktop and it would be an improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294180</id>
	<title>reliability != availability</title>
	<author>tomp</author>
	<datestamp>1267200960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Availability often comes at the cost of reliability.</p><p>If you put 2 drives in a RAID-1 mirror, the odds of a drive failure goes up. After all, you now have twice as many drives that might fail. However, a single drive failure no longer makes the data unavailable.</p><p>RAID-1 lowers reliability with the goal of raising availability. Paying sysadmins to swap drives is way cheaper than paying people to sit around waiting for their critical data to be restored from tape.</p><p>Low reliability is probably just a sign that their systems are highly redundant. Not really surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Availability often comes at the cost of reliability.If you put 2 drives in a RAID-1 mirror , the odds of a drive failure goes up .
After all , you now have twice as many drives that might fail .
However , a single drive failure no longer makes the data unavailable.RAID-1 lowers reliability with the goal of raising availability .
Paying sysadmins to swap drives is way cheaper than paying people to sit around waiting for their critical data to be restored from tape.Low reliability is probably just a sign that their systems are highly redundant .
Not really surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Availability often comes at the cost of reliability.If you put 2 drives in a RAID-1 mirror, the odds of a drive failure goes up.
After all, you now have twice as many drives that might fail.
However, a single drive failure no longer makes the data unavailable.RAID-1 lowers reliability with the goal of raising availability.
Paying sysadmins to swap drives is way cheaper than paying people to sit around waiting for their critical data to be restored from tape.Low reliability is probably just a sign that their systems are highly redundant.
Not really surprising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293386</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267194540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people bother using 'old' with P4 and especially a 286, 386, C64? Is is that there are 'new' ones that you can just buy on the market? Seems redundant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people bother using 'old ' with P4 and especially a 286 , 386 , C64 ?
Is is that there are 'new ' ones that you can just buy on the market ?
Seems redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people bother using 'old' with P4 and especially a 286, 386, C64?
Is is that there are 'new' ones that you can just buy on the market?
Seems redundant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293766</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267197120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I would have put them on Craig's List but <b>I don't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things.</b></p> </div><p>So I take it you never heard of our Anonymous Cowards</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have put them on Craig 's List but I do n't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things .
So I take it you never heard of our Anonymous Cowards</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would have put them on Craig's List but I don't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things.
So I take it you never heard of our Anonymous Cowards
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</id>
	<title>Upgrade...</title>
	<author>ak\_hepcat</author>
	<datestamp>1267192800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To windows, and get 73\% uptime!</p><p>Or.. that other OS that you don't have to license per seat, and get in the solid 90+\% uptime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To windows , and get 73 \ % uptime ! Or.. that other OS that you do n't have to license per seat , and get in the solid 90 + \ % uptime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To windows, and get 73\% uptime!Or.. that other OS that you don't have to license per seat, and get in the solid 90+\% uptime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297232</id>
	<title>Re:IBM is the Real Suprise</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1267292220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a vendor to get federal supplier status, they have to be willing to support any particular hardware system for as long as the system is used The first effect is that there is no incentive to modernize the system (why bother, it is still being supported). The second effect is that you get all sorts of junk hardware speculators who buy up ancient hardware and store it, simply to sell as a high mark-up components should any system need spare parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a vendor to get federal supplier status , they have to be willing to support any particular hardware system for as long as the system is used The first effect is that there is no incentive to modernize the system ( why bother , it is still being supported ) .
The second effect is that you get all sorts of junk hardware speculators who buy up ancient hardware and store it , simply to sell as a high mark-up components should any system need spare parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a vendor to get federal supplier status, they have to be willing to support any particular hardware system for as long as the system is used The first effect is that there is no incentive to modernize the system (why bother, it is still being supported).
The second effect is that you get all sorts of junk hardware speculators who buy up ancient hardware and store it, simply to sell as a high mark-up components should any system need spare parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294956</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1267210320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The rated you funny, but it's true. FBI CASE system also vintage 1980's mainframe system. They have tried and failed twice to rewrite 20 year old law enforcement database software at over half a billion spent so far. First time they said they didn't even have anything salvageable to show for it and threw out the entire project which aos happened to be around that magic number of $180 million. (These are mind boggling numbers. The beltway bandits and their bureaucrat sponsors are capable of sinking unfathomable amounts of money into failed software projects.)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As has been noted in previous posts, newer IBM hardware runs the older software, so it shouldn't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here. I haven't read TFA to see if there's any detail behind what exactly is failing 1/3 of the time because generally there's no detail and what there is I mostly don't believe.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; People blame the government bureaucrats, but the failed work is done by the huge consulting companies. They can blame the specs but the failures are for nearly every major software system for the last 20 years, several multiple time failures, and several still not replaced or working.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This sounds to me like the bureaucrats are raising the level of lying in a competition for what's the most desperate government software system needing replaced.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These jackoffs would have us believe it 's going to cost $ 180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that 's 20 years old ?
      The rated you funny , but it 's true .
FBI CASE system also vintage 1980 's mainframe system .
They have tried and failed twice to rewrite 20 year old law enforcement database software at over half a billion spent so far .
First time they said they did n't even have anything salvageable to show for it and threw out the entire project which aos happened to be around that magic number of $ 180 million .
( These are mind boggling numbers .
The beltway bandits and their bureaucrat sponsors are capable of sinking unfathomable amounts of money into failed software projects .
)       As has been noted in previous posts , newer IBM hardware runs the older software , so it should n't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here .
I have n't read TFA to see if there 's any detail behind what exactly is failing 1/3 of the time because generally there 's no detail and what there is I mostly do n't believe .
      People blame the government bureaucrats , but the failed work is done by the huge consulting companies .
They can blame the specs but the failures are for nearly every major software system for the last 20 years , several multiple time failures , and several still not replaced or working .
      This sounds to me like the bureaucrats are raising the level of lying in a competition for what 's the most desperate government software system needing replaced .
  rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old?
      The rated you funny, but it's true.
FBI CASE system also vintage 1980's mainframe system.
They have tried and failed twice to rewrite 20 year old law enforcement database software at over half a billion spent so far.
First time they said they didn't even have anything salvageable to show for it and threw out the entire project which aos happened to be around that magic number of $180 million.
(These are mind boggling numbers.
The beltway bandits and their bureaucrat sponsors are capable of sinking unfathomable amounts of money into failed software projects.
)
      As has been noted in previous posts, newer IBM hardware runs the older software, so it shouldn't be ancient hardware falling apart as is implied here.
I haven't read TFA to see if there's any detail behind what exactly is failing 1/3 of the time because generally there's no detail and what there is I mostly don't believe.
      People blame the government bureaucrats, but the failed work is done by the huge consulting companies.
They can blame the specs but the failures are for nearly every major software system for the last 20 years, several multiple time failures, and several still not replaced or working.
      This sounds to me like the bureaucrats are raising the level of lying in a competition for what's the most desperate government software system needing replaced.
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294810</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1267208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>440BX was a brick shithouse of a chipset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>440BX was a brick shithouse of a chipset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>440BX was a brick shithouse of a chipset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293732</id>
	<title>Security by Venerability</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267196880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At last a computer that can be safe even in a cyberwar, no modern hacker would be able to enter there, or at least, do anything dangerous.  Even the Morris worm would scream and run facing that technology. Leave that multivac running enough time and will eventually make light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At last a computer that can be safe even in a cyberwar , no modern hacker would be able to enter there , or at least , do anything dangerous .
Even the Morris worm would scream and run facing that technology .
Leave that multivac running enough time and will eventually make light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At last a computer that can be safe even in a cyberwar, no modern hacker would be able to enter there, or at least, do anything dangerous.
Even the Morris worm would scream and run facing that technology.
Leave that multivac running enough time and will eventually make light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31300166</id>
	<title>Re:"Curiously"?</title>
	<author>zeroduck</author>
	<datestamp>1267270320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I think you have far too much faith in politicians (however little faith you already have).  There is not a single issue that politicians wouldn't use to score cheap political points.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics .
I think you have far too much faith in politicians ( however little faith you already have ) .
There is not a single issue that politicians would n't use to score cheap political points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics.
I think you have far too much faith in politicians (however little faith you already have).
There is not a single issue that politicians wouldn't use to score cheap political points.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294664</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267206240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course I got modded down, but it doesn't matter. Virtue is its own reward!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course I got modded down , but it does n't matter .
Virtue is its own reward !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course I got modded down, but it doesn't matter.
Virtue is its own reward!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130</id>
	<title>"Curiously"?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1267200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b>Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut </b>"</p><p>What's curious about that? It's not like the guy is a Luddite or something. The Secret Service, at the forefront of protecting POTUS, is a national security issue, and Lieberman is very involved in those issues. If the author threw that in because he doesn't like Lieberman's politics, then that's kind of lame. One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Curiously , upgrades to the Service 's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut " What 's curious about that ?
It 's not like the guy is a Luddite or something .
The Secret Service , at the forefront of protecting POTUS , is a national security issue , and Lieberman is very involved in those issues .
If the author threw that in because he does n't like Lieberman 's politics , then that 's kind of lame .
One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut "What's curious about that?
It's not like the guy is a Luddite or something.
The Secret Service, at the forefront of protecting POTUS, is a national security issue, and Lieberman is very involved in those issues.
If the author threw that in because he doesn't like Lieberman's politics, then that's kind of lame.
One would think that issues like keeping government IT systems up to date would transcend party politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</id>
	<title>don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267193160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oynk, oynk.</p><p>Liberman wants pork money, that's obvious, he probably wants a few hundred million dollars to go to his state for this 'program'.  Question is, is this complete BS or is there something there about the 60\% nonsense and all that jazz?  I bet there is very little truth to any of these statements, that the secret service runs on these old computers and that they really need any upgrade.</p><p>Sounds to me exactly like that F22 BS, where the military says "we don't need it" and politicians say "yes, we need it, let's spend money".</p><p>It's about the money.</p><p>Oh, and Joe Lieberman - I cannot believe he is still alive, I mean better people in history died for less transgressions against their countrymen, and this piece of shit still walks the earth.  Unimaginable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oynk , oynk.Liberman wants pork money , that 's obvious , he probably wants a few hundred million dollars to go to his state for this 'program' .
Question is , is this complete BS or is there something there about the 60 \ % nonsense and all that jazz ?
I bet there is very little truth to any of these statements , that the secret service runs on these old computers and that they really need any upgrade.Sounds to me exactly like that F22 BS , where the military says " we do n't need it " and politicians say " yes , we need it , let 's spend money " .It 's about the money.Oh , and Joe Lieberman - I can not believe he is still alive , I mean better people in history died for less transgressions against their countrymen , and this piece of shit still walks the earth .
Unimaginable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oynk, oynk.Liberman wants pork money, that's obvious, he probably wants a few hundred million dollars to go to his state for this 'program'.
Question is, is this complete BS or is there something there about the 60\% nonsense and all that jazz?
I bet there is very little truth to any of these statements, that the secret service runs on these old computers and that they really need any upgrade.Sounds to me exactly like that F22 BS, where the military says "we don't need it" and politicians say "yes, we need it, let's spend money".It's about the money.Oh, and Joe Lieberman - I cannot believe he is still alive, I mean better people in history died for less transgressions against their countrymen, and this piece of shit still walks the earth.
Unimaginable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326</id>
	<title>Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267194060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something about this whole thing that simply doesn't ring true.   I believe parts, I believe they have a 1980's main frame,  I believe it's not terribly reliable but something about the whole: leaked memo according to Joe Leiberman, we need more money, they won't give us more money' spiel sounds off.  I suspect they have huge chunks of computing that's much newer and reliable,  I'd be shocked if that IBM serves any significant purpose.</p><p>If nothing else I predict a large percentage of the umpteen million dollar final cost somehow going to Connecticut, but I'm probably just incredibly jaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something about this whole thing that simply does n't ring true .
I believe parts , I believe they have a 1980 's main frame , I believe it 's not terribly reliable but something about the whole : leaked memo according to Joe Leiberman , we need more money , they wo n't give us more money ' spiel sounds off .
I suspect they have huge chunks of computing that 's much newer and reliable , I 'd be shocked if that IBM serves any significant purpose.If nothing else I predict a large percentage of the umpteen million dollar final cost somehow going to Connecticut , but I 'm probably just incredibly jaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something about this whole thing that simply doesn't ring true.
I believe parts, I believe they have a 1980's main frame,  I believe it's not terribly reliable but something about the whole: leaked memo according to Joe Leiberman, we need more money, they won't give us more money' spiel sounds off.
I suspect they have huge chunks of computing that's much newer and reliable,  I'd be shocked if that IBM serves any significant purpose.If nothing else I predict a large percentage of the umpteen million dollar final cost somehow going to Connecticut, but I'm probably just incredibly jaded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware. But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware .
But then you 'd be deprived of your joke , even if it is a pretty lame one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware.
But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293448</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267194780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware. But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.</p></div><p>You are correct, and I hope someone gives you an 'Informative' point. Alas, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Those of us who are 'early posting Karma monkeys' get modded up simply because people with Mod points don't want to slog through all the posts in a thread so they use them early and move on. <br> <br> Thanks for understanding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware .
But then you 'd be deprived of your joke , even if it is a pretty lame one.You are correct , and I hope someone gives you an 'Informative ' point .
Alas , this is / .
Those of us who are 'early posting Karma monkeys ' get modded up simply because people with Mod points do n't want to slog through all the posts in a thread so they use them early and move on .
Thanks for understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware.
But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.You are correct, and I hope someone gives you an 'Informative' point.
Alas, this is /.
Those of us who are 'early posting Karma monkeys' get modded up simply because people with Mod points don't want to slog through all the posts in a thread so they use them early and move on.
Thanks for understanding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293284</id>
	<title>They are just going after some impressive numbers</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267193760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean why settle for five nines when you can have... NINE FIVES!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean why settle for five nines when you can have... NINE FIVES !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean why settle for five nines when you can have... NINE FIVES!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31324912</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1267451640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's about the money.</p></div><p>it's about politics.  it's about fighting the slippery slope of unemployment.  it's about progress.</p><p>perhaps in your next opinion piece you should try avoiding using the word "believe" and "bet" and make up some facts instead.</p><p>it also doesn't help to prove yourself wrong by painting the picture of a world where joe lieberman is alive (the actual real world) and then suggest that it is impossible to even imagine that this world exists.</p><p>you are the worst kind of stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about the money.it 's about politics .
it 's about fighting the slippery slope of unemployment .
it 's about progress.perhaps in your next opinion piece you should try avoiding using the word " believe " and " bet " and make up some facts instead.it also does n't help to prove yourself wrong by painting the picture of a world where joe lieberman is alive ( the actual real world ) and then suggest that it is impossible to even imagine that this world exists.you are the worst kind of stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about the money.it's about politics.
it's about fighting the slippery slope of unemployment.
it's about progress.perhaps in your next opinion piece you should try avoiding using the word "believe" and "bet" and make up some facts instead.it also doesn't help to prove yourself wrong by painting the picture of a world where joe lieberman is alive (the actual real world) and then suggest that it is impossible to even imagine that this world exists.you are the worst kind of stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293740</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267196940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and get rid of the decimal.</p></div><p>What, don't you realize they could have 999\% reliability??  This could be revolutionary!!  Think what you are saying,  you nearly threw that away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and get rid of the decimal.What , do n't you realize they could have 999 \ % reliability ? ?
This could be revolutionary ! !
Think what you are saying , you nearly threw that away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and get rid of the decimal.What, don't you realize they could have 999\% reliability??
This could be revolutionary!!
Think what you are saying,  you nearly threw that away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294832</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1267208460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they would spend 37k on hardware and hire 100 contractors at 1m/year to port everything over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they would spend 37k on hardware and hire 100 contractors at 1m/year to port everything over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they would spend 37k on hardware and hire 100 contractors at 1m/year to port everything over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295830</id>
	<title>That's unacceptable</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1267269660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should make an effort to get at least NINE sixes. Or more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should make an effort to get at least NINE sixes .
Or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should make an effort to get at least NINE sixes.
Or more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293638</id>
	<title>Re:Hokey Illustration</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267196100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/48610-us-secret-service-shackled-by-ancient-mainframes" title="tgdaily.com">TG Daily claims</a> [tgdaily.com] that the Secret Service uses a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ibm704.gif" title="wikipedia.org">IBM 704</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TG Daily claims [ tgdaily.com ] that the Secret Service uses a IBM 704 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TG Daily claims [tgdaily.com] that the Secret Service uses a IBM 704 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267197840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the top 8 uptimes on netcraft are windows you fool. <a href="http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html" title="netcraft.com">http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html</a> [netcraft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the top 8 uptimes on netcraft are windows you fool .
http : //uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html [ netcraft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the top 8 uptimes on netcraft are windows you fool.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html [netcraft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394</id>
	<title>1980's mainframe?</title>
	<author>markass530</author>
	<datestamp>1267194600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't one small consumer grade server have the same power? Isn't this an easy fix?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but would n't one small consumer grade server have the same power ?
Is n't this an easy fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't one small consumer grade server have the same power?
Isn't this an easy fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293460</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Gordo\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1267194900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought was that there might be an emulator out there for that IBM hardware that would allow them to forgo the re-write. That way they get the reliability benefits of modern commodity hardware without all the heavy code lifting -- then again, maybe the code itself is part of the reliability problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that there might be an emulator out there for that IBM hardware that would allow them to forgo the re-write .
That way they get the reliability benefits of modern commodity hardware without all the heavy code lifting -- then again , maybe the code itself is part of the reliability problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that there might be an emulator out there for that IBM hardware that would allow them to forgo the re-write.
That way they get the reliability benefits of modern commodity hardware without all the heavy code lifting -- then again, maybe the code itself is part of the reliability problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294442</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267203720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>250k per machine plus backups plus storage plus facility upgrade, software and 30 years of high priority maintenance plus support both for the machine and the software? Of course, assuming their "operational requirements" never change. I have no idea of the true cost, but it might be rather high. They are probably stating their budget over something like a 30 year period. That's a lifetime of a building, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>250k per machine plus backups plus storage plus facility upgrade , software and 30 years of high priority maintenance plus support both for the machine and the software ?
Of course , assuming their " operational requirements " never change .
I have no idea of the true cost , but it might be rather high .
They are probably stating their budget over something like a 30 year period .
That 's a lifetime of a building , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>250k per machine plus backups plus storage plus facility upgrade, software and 30 years of high priority maintenance plus support both for the machine and the software?
Of course, assuming their "operational requirements" never change.
I have no idea of the true cost, but it might be rather high.
They are probably stating their budget over something like a 30 year period.
That's a lifetime of a building, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293778</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>fdsafdsafdasfdsafdsi</author>
	<datestamp>1267197180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>funny, the headline says the computers only work at 60 percent capacity, so they still have headroom of 40\%. What's the problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>funny , the headline says the computers only work at 60 percent capacity , so they still have headroom of 40 \ % .
What 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny, the headline says the computers only work at 60 percent capacity, so they still have headroom of 40\%.
What's the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296054</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>DingerX</author>
	<datestamp>1267275300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, let's do the numbers (in millions)

NSA consultancy to determine the need for new hardware: $7
External auditors of NSA consultancy: $3
Environmental impact study: $5
Feasibility study: $2
Legislative Task Force (aka "Marketing"): $10
Publication and administration of call for outside bids: $5
Hardware: $.1
Comprehensive installation and migration package: $10
Ten years support: $20
Audit of tender and winning bid: $5
Annual support audits: $5
Verification and Validation (Internal): $3
V&amp;V (external): $7
Facilities for hardware, ten years: $30
Legal Fees: $20
Overhead: $55

Total: $187.1  million</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's do the numbers ( in millions ) NSA consultancy to determine the need for new hardware : $ 7 External auditors of NSA consultancy : $ 3 Environmental impact study : $ 5 Feasibility study : $ 2 Legislative Task Force ( aka " Marketing " ) : $ 10 Publication and administration of call for outside bids : $ 5 Hardware : $ .1 Comprehensive installation and migration package : $ 10 Ten years support : $ 20 Audit of tender and winning bid : $ 5 Annual support audits : $ 5 Verification and Validation ( Internal ) : $ 3 V&amp;V ( external ) : $ 7 Facilities for hardware , ten years : $ 30 Legal Fees : $ 20 Overhead : $ 55 Total : $ 187.1 million</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's do the numbers (in millions)

NSA consultancy to determine the need for new hardware: $7
External auditors of NSA consultancy: $3
Environmental impact study: $5
Feasibility study: $2
Legislative Task Force (aka "Marketing"): $10
Publication and administration of call for outside bids: $5
Hardware: $.1
Comprehensive installation and migration package: $10
Ten years support: $20
Audit of tender and winning bid: $5
Annual support audits: $5
Verification and Validation (Internal): $3
V&amp;V (external): $7
Facilities for hardware, ten years: $30
Legal Fees: $20
Overhead: $55

Total: $187.1  million</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294578</id>
	<title>Re:"Curiously"?</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1267205040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>then that's kind of lame</p></div><p>No, that's the quality of reporters these days  when everyone has a blag, the true folks have forgotten what separated them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>then that 's kind of lameNo , that 's the quality of reporters these days when everyone has a blag , the true folks have forgotten what separated them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then that's kind of lameNo, that's the quality of reporters these days  when everyone has a blag, the true folks have forgotten what separated them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295232</id>
	<title>USSR offices...</title>
	<author>garompeta</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The IT systems lack appropriate bandwidth to run multiple applications to effectively support USSS offices and operational missions around the world</p></div><p>For a moment I thought it said USSR, and I nodded.<br>Funny how the brain works, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IT systems lack appropriate bandwidth to run multiple applications to effectively support USSS offices and operational missions around the worldFor a moment I thought it said USSR , and I nodded.Funny how the brain works , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IT systems lack appropriate bandwidth to run multiple applications to effectively support USSS offices and operational missions around the worldFor a moment I thought it said USSR, and I nodded.Funny how the brain works, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293314</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1267193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is this case, the good senator shall hereon be known as Joe Libermanbearpig, in honor of the late <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfGmf8L3-z0" title="youtube.com">ManBearPig</a> [youtube.com] of Al Gore mythology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is this case , the good senator shall hereon be known as Joe Libermanbearpig , in honor of the late ManBearPig [ youtube.com ] of Al Gore mythology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is this case, the good senator shall hereon be known as Joe Libermanbearpig, in honor of the late ManBearPig [youtube.com] of Al Gore mythology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293544</id>
	<title>Re:1980's mainframe?</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1267195440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, get the custom-programmed code that requires the input and output of a mainframe rewritten to a $1000 server. The cost should only be a few million. That'd only buy a few new IBM mainframes that would run the existing code faster and more reliably than the old mainframe without any code changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , get the custom-programmed code that requires the input and output of a mainframe rewritten to a $ 1000 server .
The cost should only be a few million .
That 'd only buy a few new IBM mainframes that would run the existing code faster and more reliably than the old mainframe without any code changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, get the custom-programmed code that requires the input and output of a mainframe rewritten to a $1000 server.
The cost should only be a few million.
That'd only buy a few new IBM mainframes that would run the existing code faster and more reliably than the old mainframe without any code changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295680</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oynk, oynk.  Joe Lieberman - the corporatist.  Is his wife getting any money from insurance industry?  Is he getting money from insurance industry?  Yes they do, but obviously that became not enough.  Now he also wants to force the secret service to build some ridiculous and most likely not needed IT systems in his state, I am sure, that is the only real reason for any of US politicians to come out with statements like that: we want pork.</p><p>Certainly he will pillage the system some more and then again before he goes away.</p><p>Democrats, Republicans, they are bought long time ago by the corporations.  Get rid of them, vote for someone who is not with the establishment, someone who is not bought by the corporations yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oynk , oynk .
Joe Lieberman - the corporatist .
Is his wife getting any money from insurance industry ?
Is he getting money from insurance industry ?
Yes they do , but obviously that became not enough .
Now he also wants to force the secret service to build some ridiculous and most likely not needed IT systems in his state , I am sure , that is the only real reason for any of US politicians to come out with statements like that : we want pork.Certainly he will pillage the system some more and then again before he goes away.Democrats , Republicans , they are bought long time ago by the corporations .
Get rid of them , vote for someone who is not with the establishment , someone who is not bought by the corporations yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oynk, oynk.
Joe Lieberman - the corporatist.
Is his wife getting any money from insurance industry?
Is he getting money from insurance industry?
Yes they do, but obviously that became not enough.
Now he also wants to force the secret service to build some ridiculous and most likely not needed IT systems in his state, I am sure, that is the only real reason for any of US politicians to come out with statements like that: we want pork.Certainly he will pillage the system some more and then again before he goes away.Democrats, Republicans, they are bought long time ago by the corporations.
Get rid of them, vote for someone who is not with the establishment, someone who is not bought by the corporations yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31310514</id>
	<title>Six Sixes?</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1267364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF does "six sixes" mean? Is that anything like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six\_Sigma" title="wikipedia.org">"six sigma"</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF does " six sixes " mean ?
Is that anything like " six sigma " [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF does "six sixes" mean?
Is that anything like "six sigma" [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294134</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267200300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this was modded funny, but my most reliable server is a PIII-550 w/ a 440BX mobo and 768MB of ram.  Runs Win2.3K Active Directory now, yes it's slow but it NEVER dies.  Kind of like the mars rovers, I'm not willing to pull the plug just yet.  But if the secret service needs it, I'll sacrifice for my country...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this was modded funny , but my most reliable server is a PIII-550 w/ a 440BX mobo and 768MB of ram .
Runs Win2.3K Active Directory now , yes it 's slow but it NEVER dies .
Kind of like the mars rovers , I 'm not willing to pull the plug just yet .
But if the secret service needs it , I 'll sacrifice for my country.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this was modded funny, but my most reliable server is a PIII-550 w/ a 440BX mobo and 768MB of ram.
Runs Win2.3K Active Directory now, yes it's slow but it NEVER dies.
Kind of like the mars rovers, I'm not willing to pull the plug just yet.
But if the secret service needs it, I'll sacrifice for my country...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162</id>
	<title>Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1267192920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I have several old P4 1.6Ghz w/ 256MB RAM &amp; 100Mhz FSB in a store room at a client site. They <i>originally</i> shipped with Win 98 but they've since been upgraded to XP. The Secret Service can have them fro free if they just come and pick them up. I would have put them on Craig's List but I don't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I have several old P4 1.6Ghz w/ 256MB RAM &amp; 100Mhz FSB in a store room at a client site .
They originally shipped with Win 98 but they 've since been upgraded to XP .
The Secret Service can have them fro free if they just come and pick them up .
I would have put them on Craig 's List but I do n't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I have several old P4 1.6Ghz w/ 256MB RAM &amp; 100Mhz FSB in a store room at a client site.
They originally shipped with Win 98 but they've since been upgraded to XP.
The Secret Service can have them fro free if they just come and pick them up.
I would have put them on Craig's List but I don't trust a web site where they let just anybody post things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294092</id>
	<title>I truly doubt it.</title>
	<author>nten</author>
	<datestamp>1267199880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never ascribe to malice or incompetence what can be explained by incompetent malice.  I'm proud of myself, that sounded witty, but honestly I'd guess the original system "just worked" and slowly the needs outgrew it so that fewer people could use it at any given time than would like to use it.  So slowly that the people who would have to explain the purchase could say "but its not that much worse than last year" instead of filling out enough forms to account for the mass of a sequoia, in order to do the requisition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never ascribe to malice or incompetence what can be explained by incompetent malice .
I 'm proud of myself , that sounded witty , but honestly I 'd guess the original system " just worked " and slowly the needs outgrew it so that fewer people could use it at any given time than would like to use it .
So slowly that the people who would have to explain the purchase could say " but its not that much worse than last year " instead of filling out enough forms to account for the mass of a sequoia , in order to do the requisition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never ascribe to malice or incompetence what can be explained by incompetent malice.
I'm proud of myself, that sounded witty, but honestly I'd guess the original system "just worked" and slowly the needs outgrew it so that fewer people could use it at any given time than would like to use it.
So slowly that the people who would have to explain the purchase could say "but its not that much worse than last year" instead of filling out enough forms to account for the mass of a sequoia, in order to do the requisition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294518</id>
	<title>Support costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainframe support costs are generally ratcheted up as IBM pushes you towards mandatory upgrades. I can only imagine how expensive it is for support on a "1980s era mainframe" with parts that you just can't get anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainframe support costs are generally ratcheted up as IBM pushes you towards mandatory upgrades .
I can only imagine how expensive it is for support on a " 1980s era mainframe " with parts that you just ca n't get anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainframe support costs are generally ratcheted up as IBM pushes you towards mandatory upgrades.
I can only imagine how expensive it is for support on a "1980s era mainframe" with parts that you just can't get anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297226</id>
	<title>I can see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see an upgrade to WFW3.11 in their future just as soon as we can locate some 80286 machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see an upgrade to WFW3.11 in their future just as soon as we can locate some 80286 machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see an upgrade to WFW3.11 in their future just as soon as we can locate some 80286 machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295766</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1267268220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut..."

Not so curious. Former Democrat Lieberman is pretty much on target when it comes to rectifying America's security vulnerabilities.

Let's face it, for vital security agencies to be laboring along with creaky 1980's mainframes when you and I have the 80's equivalent of supercomputers in our desk- or laptops is disconcerting to say the least. In this day of t-t-t-Trillion dollar D.C. spending sprees I wish more congress critters were as clued in as old Joe is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Curiously , upgrades to the Service 's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut... " Not so curious .
Former Democrat Lieberman is pretty much on target when it comes to rectifying America 's security vulnerabilities .
Let 's face it , for vital security agencies to be laboring along with creaky 1980 's mainframes when you and I have the 80 's equivalent of supercomputers in our desk- or laptops is disconcerting to say the least .
In this day of t-t-t-Trillion dollar D.C. spending sprees I wish more congress critters were as clued in as old Joe is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut..."

Not so curious.
Former Democrat Lieberman is pretty much on target when it comes to rectifying America's security vulnerabilities.
Let's face it, for vital security agencies to be laboring along with creaky 1980's mainframes when you and I have the 80's equivalent of supercomputers in our desk- or laptops is disconcerting to say the least.
In this day of t-t-t-Trillion dollar D.C. spending sprees I wish more congress critters were as clued in as old Joe is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296344</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267281360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainframes cost a lot more than 100k, usually a few million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainframes cost a lot more than 100k , usually a few million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainframes cost a lot more than 100k, usually a few million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31336426</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>he said FLIP, not ROTATE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he said FLIP , not ROTATE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he said FLIP, not ROTATE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293444</id>
	<title>Misleading photo</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267194780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story uses a <a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/890808-001" title="gettyimages.com">stock photo</a> [gettyimages.com] captioned "Obsolete mainframe super computers in  [Computer History] museum". I  don't think the Secret Service uses <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage\_2401.html" title="ibm.com">IBM 2401 magnetic tape units</a> [ibm.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story uses a stock photo [ gettyimages.com ] captioned " Obsolete mainframe super computers in [ Computer History ] museum " .
I do n't think the Secret Service uses IBM 2401 magnetic tape units [ ibm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story uses a stock photo [gettyimages.com] captioned "Obsolete mainframe super computers in  [Computer History] museum".
I  don't think the Secret Service uses IBM 2401 magnetic tape units [ibm.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293312</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1267193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll probably contract it out to EDS and spend 3 billion dollars on Citrix licenses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll probably contract it out to EDS and spend 3 billion dollars on Citrix licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll probably contract it out to EDS and spend 3 billion dollars on Citrix licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298686</id>
	<title>I supported hospital systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That had 99.9999\% uptime.  I will do the upgrade for them for just 100 million dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That had 99.9999 \ % uptime .
I will do the upgrade for them for just 100 million dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That had 99.9999\% uptime.
I will do the upgrade for them for just 100 million dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293902</id>
	<title>Pish, Overachievers....</title>
	<author>Matey-O</author>
	<datestamp>1267198080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's better than our goal of Nine 5's...up a little over half the time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's better than our goal of Nine 5 's...up a little over half the time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's better than our goal of Nine 5's...up a little over half the time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293948</id>
	<title>90\%?</title>
	<author>hedronist</author>
	<datestamp>1267198560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are only getting 90\% from <i>any</i> OS you really should be shopping for a new OS. I've got flaky machines in my garage running Linux that regularly are up for 6 months or more at a time, and that includes dodgy power in my area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are only getting 90 \ % from any OS you really should be shopping for a new OS .
I 've got flaky machines in my garage running Linux that regularly are up for 6 months or more at a time , and that includes dodgy power in my area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are only getting 90\% from any OS you really should be shopping for a new OS.
I've got flaky machines in my garage running Linux that regularly are up for 6 months or more at a time, and that includes dodgy power in my area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293556</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1267195500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P4? Because they have one/it was free?</p><p>286? Beats me, maybe to run some old game which doesn't run well on modern hardware.</p><p>386? Beats me.</p><p>C64? To get the genuine experience without needing to use an emulator on something modern?</p><p>With things like the C64 and the Amiga (or old Apple machines or NES or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) I guess it's not just the software doing it. One want to feel, hear, see and maybe smell the real deal =P</p><p>Why get a real painting when you can get a copy? =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P4 ?
Because they have one/it was free ? 286 ?
Beats me , maybe to run some old game which does n't run well on modern hardware.386 ?
Beats me.C64 ?
To get the genuine experience without needing to use an emulator on something modern ? With things like the C64 and the Amiga ( or old Apple machines or NES or .. ) I guess it 's not just the software doing it .
One want to feel , hear , see and maybe smell the real deal = PWhy get a real painting when you can get a copy ?
= P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P4?
Because they have one/it was free?286?
Beats me, maybe to run some old game which doesn't run well on modern hardware.386?
Beats me.C64?
To get the genuine experience without needing to use an emulator on something modern?With things like the C64 and the Amiga (or old Apple machines or NES or ..) I guess it's not just the software doing it.
One want to feel, hear, see and maybe smell the real deal =PWhy get a real painting when you can get a copy?
=P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294346</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1267202580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it is a very good hammer you see. Guaranteed to work you see. You need these very splendid and unfortunately expensive hammers in order to wash some money you see...</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it is a very good hammer you see .
Guaranteed to work you see .
You need these very splendid and unfortunately expensive hammers in order to wash some money you see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it is a very good hammer you see.
Guaranteed to work you see.
You need these very splendid and unfortunately expensive hammers in order to wash some money you see...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295696</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267267020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jade <i>n.</i> <br>
&nbsp; 1. A shade of green. <br>
&nbsp; 2. The color of people who fully understand the American political system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jade n .   1 .
A shade of green .
  2 .
The color of people who fully understand the American political system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jade n. 
  1.
A shade of green.
  2.
The color of people who fully understand the American political system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293714</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1267196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But then you'd be deprived of your joke</p></div><p>Are you sure? I assumed that the joke was that he was posting the ad on Slashdot because he didn't like Craigslist because anyone can post anything there (unlike Slashdot, where anyone can also post anything there too).</p><p>But then I guess it's not funny if you have to explain it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then you 'd be deprived of your jokeAre you sure ?
I assumed that the joke was that he was posting the ad on Slashdot because he did n't like Craigslist because anyone can post anything there ( unlike Slashdot , where anyone can also post anything there too ) .But then I guess it 's not funny if you have to explain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then you'd be deprived of your jokeAre you sure?
I assumed that the joke was that he was posting the ad on Slashdot because he didn't like Craigslist because anyone can post anything there (unlike Slashdot, where anyone can also post anything there too).But then I guess it's not funny if you have to explain it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298466</id>
	<title>Re:this HAS to be deliberate misinformation</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1267299960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why was this modded troll? Honestly, I don't get what's the least bit trollish about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was this modded troll ?
Honestly , I do n't get what 's the least bit trollish about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was this modded troll?
Honestly, I don't get what's the least bit trollish about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293672</id>
	<title>dis-information.</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1267196340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what more is there to be said aboutit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what more is there to be said aboutit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what more is there to be said aboutit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293186</id>
	<title>fully operational doesn't mean what it sounds like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainframes of yore had a hell of a lot of moving parts: a large system might have dozens of tape drives and disk drives.  Tape drives in particular broke down all the time and were taken offline until the maintenance guy came for his weekly or monthly visit and tightened the belts or whatever the hell they did.  Knuth remarked on that situation in his magnum opus TAOCP vol 3 on sorting and searching.  In the part about sorting with tape drives, he remarked that he'd never seen a large computer installation where all the tape drives were working.  You'd have a computer with ten tape drives, two of them would be down pending repairs, and you'd use the other eight.  In other words your computer was operational but not FULLY operational.</p><p>There is a similar situation in today's data centers.  Even at the wimpy little shop I worked in last year (about 2000 computers) some were always down.  We were doing pretty good if the number down at any moment was less than a few dozen.  I don't think we ever had a single day of being fully operational (every single computer up at the same time).  That was fine, it wasn't a requirement, it was a distributed system and the data and functions were all sufficiently replicated that we kept running, by design, even with parts of the system unavailable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainframes of yore had a hell of a lot of moving parts : a large system might have dozens of tape drives and disk drives .
Tape drives in particular broke down all the time and were taken offline until the maintenance guy came for his weekly or monthly visit and tightened the belts or whatever the hell they did .
Knuth remarked on that situation in his magnum opus TAOCP vol 3 on sorting and searching .
In the part about sorting with tape drives , he remarked that he 'd never seen a large computer installation where all the tape drives were working .
You 'd have a computer with ten tape drives , two of them would be down pending repairs , and you 'd use the other eight .
In other words your computer was operational but not FULLY operational.There is a similar situation in today 's data centers .
Even at the wimpy little shop I worked in last year ( about 2000 computers ) some were always down .
We were doing pretty good if the number down at any moment was less than a few dozen .
I do n't think we ever had a single day of being fully operational ( every single computer up at the same time ) .
That was fine , it was n't a requirement , it was a distributed system and the data and functions were all sufficiently replicated that we kept running , by design , even with parts of the system unavailable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainframes of yore had a hell of a lot of moving parts: a large system might have dozens of tape drives and disk drives.
Tape drives in particular broke down all the time and were taken offline until the maintenance guy came for his weekly or monthly visit and tightened the belts or whatever the hell they did.
Knuth remarked on that situation in his magnum opus TAOCP vol 3 on sorting and searching.
In the part about sorting with tape drives, he remarked that he'd never seen a large computer installation where all the tape drives were working.
You'd have a computer with ten tape drives, two of them would be down pending repairs, and you'd use the other eight.
In other words your computer was operational but not FULLY operational.There is a similar situation in today's data centers.
Even at the wimpy little shop I worked in last year (about 2000 computers) some were always down.
We were doing pretty good if the number down at any moment was less than a few dozen.
I don't think we ever had a single day of being fully operational (every single computer up at the same time).
That was fine, it wasn't a requirement, it was a distributed system and the data and functions were all sufficiently replicated that we kept running, by design, even with parts of the system unavailable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294696</id>
	<title>Re:$187 million?</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1267206540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget labor costs.  Someone has to port that old old old code nobody understands anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget labor costs .
Someone has to port that old old old code nobody understands anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget labor costs.
Someone has to port that old old old code nobody understands anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308</id>
	<title>this HAS to be deliberate misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes more sense that this is intentional misinformation. It would explain away a considerable budget request while simultaneously --if believed for a moment-- would lull groups opposed to the SS a false sense of security. If the capabilities of the SS is underestimated, their job will be easier.</p><p>To think that the previous administration didn't sink as much money as could possibly cram into the SS in the interests of their own security is absurd. While it doesn't have the same bunker/man-sized-safe reputation for paranoid security, the same goes for the current one. Both the current and the previous administrations were faced with a very large number of openly hostile people who were not shy about voicing threats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes more sense that this is intentional misinformation .
It would explain away a considerable budget request while simultaneously --if believed for a moment-- would lull groups opposed to the SS a false sense of security .
If the capabilities of the SS is underestimated , their job will be easier.To think that the previous administration did n't sink as much money as could possibly cram into the SS in the interests of their own security is absurd .
While it does n't have the same bunker/man-sized-safe reputation for paranoid security , the same goes for the current one .
Both the current and the previous administrations were faced with a very large number of openly hostile people who were not shy about voicing threats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes more sense that this is intentional misinformation.
It would explain away a considerable budget request while simultaneously --if believed for a moment-- would lull groups opposed to the SS a false sense of security.
If the capabilities of the SS is underestimated, their job will be easier.To think that the previous administration didn't sink as much money as could possibly cram into the SS in the interests of their own security is absurd.
While it doesn't have the same bunker/man-sized-safe reputation for paranoid security, the same goes for the current one.
Both the current and the previous administrations were faced with a very large number of openly hostile people who were not shy about voicing threats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294462</id>
	<title>I call B.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267203900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These stories tend to be B.S. ploys in order to get pity funding from Congress for some modernization effort or some other project.  The agency I used to work at had similar things said about it, and I can guarantee they were inaccurate, but that funding was received.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These stories tend to be B.S .
ploys in order to get pity funding from Congress for some modernization effort or some other project .
The agency I used to work at had similar things said about it , and I can guarantee they were inaccurate , but that funding was received .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These stories tend to be B.S.
ploys in order to get pity funding from Congress for some modernization effort or some other project.
The agency I used to work at had similar things said about it, and I can guarantee they were inaccurate, but that funding was received.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416</id>
	<title>Hokey Illustration</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267194660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1980's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape.  They used tape cartridges, often managed by automatic tape libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1980 's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape .
They used tape cartridges , often managed by automatic tape libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1980's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape.
They used tape cartridges, often managed by automatic tape libraries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293844</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267197660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>90+ uptime for free is useless if the OS can't fill your requirements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 + uptime for free is useless if the OS ca n't fill your requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90+ uptime for free is useless if the OS can't fill your requirements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295298</id>
	<title>IBM is the Real Suprise</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1267301880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real shocker in this story is the IBM connection. <b>Here is a IBM client that has a system without a hardware  upgrade in 30 years!!!</b> It's against the laws of nature.  IBM wrote the book on installing big iron, and then getting users into an endless cycle of lock in and upgrades. Gates and Intel just copied this model to the i86/Windows franchise.
<p>
Somehow I feel let down. What happened to the classic IBM sales organization that used Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt to coerce their clients into endless expansion and upgrades, needed or not? To make matters worse, it's a Federal system! When other vendors used to bid against IBM for a US government contract, everyone else always started in last place. When other vendors won it seemed like a mistake.
</p><p>
If IBM can't suck endless amounts of money out of the US government then there is something seriously wrong with America. We've lost our competitive spirit. How the mighty have fallen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real shocker in this story is the IBM connection .
Here is a IBM client that has a system without a hardware upgrade in 30 years ! ! !
It 's against the laws of nature .
IBM wrote the book on installing big iron , and then getting users into an endless cycle of lock in and upgrades .
Gates and Intel just copied this model to the i86/Windows franchise .
Somehow I feel let down .
What happened to the classic IBM sales organization that used Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt to coerce their clients into endless expansion and upgrades , needed or not ?
To make matters worse , it 's a Federal system !
When other vendors used to bid against IBM for a US government contract , everyone else always started in last place .
When other vendors won it seemed like a mistake .
If IBM ca n't suck endless amounts of money out of the US government then there is something seriously wrong with America .
We 've lost our competitive spirit .
How the mighty have fallen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real shocker in this story is the IBM connection.
Here is a IBM client that has a system without a hardware  upgrade in 30 years!!!
It's against the laws of nature.
IBM wrote the book on installing big iron, and then getting users into an endless cycle of lock in and upgrades.
Gates and Intel just copied this model to the i86/Windows franchise.
Somehow I feel let down.
What happened to the classic IBM sales organization that used Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt to coerce their clients into endless expansion and upgrades, needed or not?
To make matters worse, it's a Federal system!
When other vendors used to bid against IBM for a US government contract, everyone else always started in last place.
When other vendors won it seemed like a mistake.
If IBM can't suck endless amounts of money out of the US government then there is something seriously wrong with America.
We've lost our competitive spirit.
How the mighty have fallen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295998</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267273620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that saying: "first they laugh, then you win"? It applies here to Microsoft.</p><p>Because jokes about Windows reliability stopped being funny about a decade ago with the release of Windows NT. And they definitely don't make sense today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that saying : " first they laugh , then you win " ?
It applies here to Microsoft.Because jokes about Windows reliability stopped being funny about a decade ago with the release of Windows NT .
And they definitely do n't make sense today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that saying: "first they laugh, then you win"?
It applies here to Microsoft.Because jokes about Windows reliability stopped being funny about a decade ago with the release of Windows NT.
And they definitely don't make sense today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293528</id>
	<title>Re:don't trust it, it's about pork</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267195320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll repost the same message again, later, when the moderators are tired of voting it down: this is another pork program, Joe Lieberman is a thief, a liar and a traitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll repost the same message again , later , when the moderators are tired of voting it down : this is another pork program , Joe Lieberman is a thief , a liar and a traitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll repost the same message again, later, when the moderators are tired of voting it down: this is another pork program, Joe Lieberman is a thief, a liar and a traitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298802</id>
	<title>You should have known something was amiss</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1267302060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew immediately upon seeing that almost all of the top 50 were Windows server that their data was missing something (like a basis in reality) so I did some digging. The Netcraft FAQ reads in part:<blockquote><div><ul> <li>Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are: Linux on Intel x86 processor, kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24</li><li>Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include; Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25</li></ul></div> </blockquote><p>In other words their data is completely useless.  The Linux 2.6 kernel has been around since 2003. So yes, if you sample all the computers in the world, and then factor out all of those whose system administrators actually have a clue, use a recent kernel less than 7 years old, and apply updates regularly, then Windows servers do start to filter to the top of the list.  Who'd have thought it? Don't you just hate it when you call someone a fool, and the fool turns out to be you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew immediately upon seeing that almost all of the top 50 were Windows server that their data was missing something ( like a basis in reality ) so I did some digging .
The Netcraft FAQ reads in part : Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are : Linux on Intel x86 processor , kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include ; Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25 In other words their data is completely useless .
The Linux 2.6 kernel has been around since 2003 .
So yes , if you sample all the computers in the world , and then factor out all of those whose system administrators actually have a clue , use a recent kernel less than 7 years old , and apply updates regularly , then Windows servers do start to filter to the top of the list .
Who 'd have thought it ?
Do n't you just hate it when you call someone a fool , and the fool turns out to be you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew immediately upon seeing that almost all of the top 50 were Windows server that their data was missing something (like a basis in reality) so I did some digging.
The Netcraft FAQ reads in part: Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are: Linux on Intel x86 processor, kernel versions 2.1 to 2.5.24Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include; Linux on Intel x86 processor from kernel version 2.5.25 In other words their data is completely useless.
The Linux 2.6 kernel has been around since 2003.
So yes, if you sample all the computers in the world, and then factor out all of those whose system administrators actually have a clue, use a recent kernel less than 7 years old, and apply updates regularly, then Windows servers do start to filter to the top of the list.
Who'd have thought it?
Don't you just hate it when you call someone a fool, and the fool turns out to be you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956</id>
	<title>$187 million?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267198620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're claiming it will cost $187 million to replace.  Bullshit.  If the hardware is more than 15 years old, which it sounds like it is, it's impossible to conceive how they could spend more than $100k on hardware to replace it and still give 100x the performance and capacity.  OK, let's splurge - spend 5 million on hardware.</p><p>These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old?  Complete bullshit.  Instead of the mythical $500 government hammer, now we've got the $180 million dollar software package that should cost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're claiming it will cost $ 187 million to replace .
Bullshit. If the hardware is more than 15 years old , which it sounds like it is , it 's impossible to conceive how they could spend more than $ 100k on hardware to replace it and still give 100x the performance and capacity .
OK , let 's splurge - spend 5 million on hardware.These jackoffs would have us believe it 's going to cost $ 180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that 's 20 years old ?
Complete bullshit .
Instead of the mythical $ 500 government hammer , now we 've got the $ 180 million dollar software package that should cost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're claiming it will cost $187 million to replace.
Bullshit.  If the hardware is more than 15 years old, which it sounds like it is, it's impossible to conceive how they could spend more than $100k on hardware to replace it and still give 100x the performance and capacity.
OK, let's splurge - spend 5 million on hardware.These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old?
Complete bullshit.
Instead of the mythical $500 government hammer, now we've got the $180 million dollar software package that should cost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293332</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1267194060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No no, you can't let those pesky open source lads win!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No no , you ca n't let those pesky open source lads win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no, you can't let those pesky open source lads win!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294170</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267200720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#cycle250</p><p>And that's partly why? Netcraft is incapable of measuring uptime for 2.6 kernels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html # cycle250And that 's partly why ?
Netcraft is incapable of measuring uptime for 2.6 kernels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#cycle250And that's partly why?
Netcraft is incapable of measuring uptime for 2.6 kernels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295166</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>tsm\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1267213620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you're confusing "work" with "business related activities".  One of these is handled by every OS, the other requires Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're confusing " work " with " business related activities " .
One of these is handled by every OS , the other requires Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're confusing "work" with "business related activities".
One of these is handled by every OS, the other requires Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294010</id>
	<title>Re:Here's An Idea ...</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1267199160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could probably write an emulator for the hardware a lot easier than you could rewrite all the software that runs on this thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could probably write an emulator for the hardware a lot easier than you could rewrite all the software that runs on this thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could probably write an emulator for the hardware a lot easier than you could rewrite all the software that runs on this thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296082</id>
	<title>Why not outsource the whole ball of whacks?</title>
	<author>mnemotronic</author>
	<datestamp>1267276080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Layoff your data center and software staff.  Cancel the contractors &amp; consultants.  Get rid of the hardware.  Setup a remote data center in India or China.  Hire a couple thousand locals to rewrite the legacy apps.  You'll be fine.<br> <br>Security problem?  Loss of jobs?!?  In your mind senator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Layoff your data center and software staff .
Cancel the contractors &amp; consultants .
Get rid of the hardware .
Setup a remote data center in India or China .
Hire a couple thousand locals to rewrite the legacy apps .
You 'll be fine .
Security problem ?
Loss of jobs ? ! ?
In your mind senator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Layoff your data center and software staff.
Cancel the contractors &amp; consultants.
Get rid of the hardware.
Setup a remote data center in India or China.
Hire a couple thousand locals to rewrite the legacy apps.
You'll be fine.
Security problem?
Loss of jobs?!?
In your mind senator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294570</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half of those show as IIS 5.0/Windows 2000. There is no way that a Windows 2000 box has stayed online for 1700 days (over 5 years!!!) without being pwned and crashed. For large sites that do load balancing and such, Netcraft is a better indicator of SITE uptime instead of uptime for a single particular box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of those show as IIS 5.0/Windows 2000 .
There is no way that a Windows 2000 box has stayed online for 1700 days ( over 5 years ! ! !
) without being pwned and crashed .
For large sites that do load balancing and such , Netcraft is a better indicator of SITE uptime instead of uptime for a single particular box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of those show as IIS 5.0/Windows 2000.
There is no way that a Windows 2000 box has stayed online for 1700 days (over 5 years!!!
) without being pwned and crashed.
For large sites that do load balancing and such, Netcraft is a better indicator of SITE uptime instead of uptime for a single particular box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293684</id>
	<title>Re:A riff on a little ditty I once saw on /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267196400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One time I sucked sixty-six dicks in a row<br>One time I sucked sixty-six dirty dicks in a row<br>One time I got my kicks with Joe<br>And I sucked his dick and sixty-five of his friends in a row</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One time I sucked sixty-six dicks in a rowOne time I sucked sixty-six dirty dicks in a rowOne time I got my kicks with JoeAnd I sucked his dick and sixty-five of his friends in a row</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One time I sucked sixty-six dicks in a rowOne time I sucked sixty-six dirty dicks in a rowOne time I got my kicks with JoeAnd I sucked his dick and sixty-five of his friends in a row</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293198</id>
	<title>The conspiracy runs deeper than that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The even more shocking reality is that there is no secret service IBM mainframe, only a non-working mock up on a sound stage. The actual performance reliability rating is 0\%. And over the years a series of system administrators have been been hired only to die in mysterious bullet-related circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The even more shocking reality is that there is no secret service IBM mainframe , only a non-working mock up on a sound stage .
The actual performance reliability rating is 0 \ % .
And over the years a series of system administrators have been been hired only to die in mysterious bullet-related circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The even more shocking reality is that there is no secret service IBM mainframe, only a non-working mock up on a sound stage.
The actual performance reliability rating is 0\%.
And over the years a series of system administrators have been been hired only to die in mysterious bullet-related circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294906</id>
	<title>Law enforcement systems are hard</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267209360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The article is bogus, but the problem is real.  Computer support systems for investigators are hard to build. The FBI has struggled with this, taking about a decade to deploy their "Field Office Automation" system.  They're hard for many of the same reasons medical systems are hard - much of the incoming data is unstructured, and many people enter data relevant to the same case.  It's even harder than in the medical world, because links between various individuals and events are important, but unreliable.  The "customers" aren't cooperative, they usually don't have unique identifiers, and a sizable fraction of the information is bogus.  The security problems are tough to even define - exactly who's allowed to see what is a big issue.
</p><p>
The older law enforcement systems didn't offer much searchability.  Unless you had a hard search key, like a driver's license number or a full name, you couldn't retrieve much.  Now, everybody expects Google-like searchability, and the older systems just didn't have the machinery for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is bogus , but the problem is real .
Computer support systems for investigators are hard to build .
The FBI has struggled with this , taking about a decade to deploy their " Field Office Automation " system .
They 're hard for many of the same reasons medical systems are hard - much of the incoming data is unstructured , and many people enter data relevant to the same case .
It 's even harder than in the medical world , because links between various individuals and events are important , but unreliable .
The " customers " are n't cooperative , they usually do n't have unique identifiers , and a sizable fraction of the information is bogus .
The security problems are tough to even define - exactly who 's allowed to see what is a big issue .
The older law enforcement systems did n't offer much searchability .
Unless you had a hard search key , like a driver 's license number or a full name , you could n't retrieve much .
Now , everybody expects Google-like searchability , and the older systems just did n't have the machinery for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The article is bogus, but the problem is real.
Computer support systems for investigators are hard to build.
The FBI has struggled with this, taking about a decade to deploy their "Field Office Automation" system.
They're hard for many of the same reasons medical systems are hard - much of the incoming data is unstructured, and many people enter data relevant to the same case.
It's even harder than in the medical world, because links between various individuals and events are important, but unreliable.
The "customers" aren't cooperative, they usually don't have unique identifiers, and a sizable fraction of the information is bogus.
The security problems are tough to even define - exactly who's allowed to see what is a big issue.
The older law enforcement systems didn't offer much searchability.
Unless you had a hard search key, like a driver's license number or a full name, you couldn't retrieve much.
Now, everybody expects Google-like searchability, and the older systems just didn't have the machinery for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293866</id>
	<title>Not curious at all</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1267197780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut</i> <br> <br>

Its not curious. Don't confuse his desire to censor, restrict, or otherwise hinder the people's access to free information(the internet).<br> <br>
Doesn't mean he won't allow every resource into that same tech if security/administration needs it...especially if it achieves the former.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Curiously , upgrades to the Service 's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut Its not curious .
Do n't confuse his desire to censor , restrict , or otherwise hinder the people 's access to free information ( the internet ) .
Does n't mean he wo n't allow every resource into that same tech if security/administration needs it...especially if it achieves the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut  

Its not curious.
Don't confuse his desire to censor, restrict, or otherwise hinder the people's access to free information(the internet).
Doesn't mean he won't allow every resource into that same tech if security/administration needs it...especially if it achieves the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293152</id>
	<title>A riff on a little ditty I once saw on /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once I sucked sixty-six dicks in a row.<br>I sucked sixty-six in a row.<br>One time I hung out with Joe.<br>I sucked his dick and sixty-five more in a row.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once I sucked sixty-six dicks in a row.I sucked sixty-six in a row.One time I hung out with Joe.I sucked his dick and sixty-five more in a row .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once I sucked sixty-six dicks in a row.I sucked sixty-six in a row.One time I hung out with Joe.I sucked his dick and sixty-five more in a row.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293768</id>
	<title>Re:Hokey Illustration</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267197120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plenty of nine-track tape was still in use on mainframes in the 1980s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of nine-track tape was still in use on mainframes in the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of nine-track tape was still in use on mainframes in the 1980s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296926</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1267289280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's L<b>ie</b>berman (really, it is).  If he told you that the sky was blue, you should go outside to double check.

</p><p>Don't be so quick to assume that it's just pork for Connecticut - Holy Joe may have some Israeli contractors ready to no-bid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Lieberman ( really , it is ) .
If he told you that the sky was blue , you should go outside to double check .
Do n't be so quick to assume that it 's just pork for Connecticut - Holy Joe may have some Israeli contractors ready to no-bid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Lieberman (really, it is).
If he told you that the sky was blue, you should go outside to double check.
Don't be so quick to assume that it's just pork for Connecticut - Holy Joe may have some Israeli contractors ready to no-bid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294340</id>
	<title>Re:Hokey Illustration</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1267202580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1980's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape. They used tape cartridges, often managed by automatic tape libraries.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nine track drives like that were still in use the 1980s.  Into the 1990s, even.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1980 's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape .
They used tape cartridges , often managed by automatic tape libraries.Nine track drives like that were still in use the 1980s .
Into the 1990s , even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1980's mainframes did not use reel-to-reel tape.
They used tape cartridges, often managed by automatic tape libraries.Nine track drives like that were still in use the 1980s.
Into the 1990s, even.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297194</id>
	<title>How Much?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only 4,400 agents, buying them all a $1,000 pc each is only $4.4 million. There's about 100 offices, an incredibly decent server for each of them would be about 100k each ($10 mill). So where does the $187 mill come in? And where do I bid for the contract?</p><p>Now I know how companies like EDS take truckloads of cash home...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only 4,400 agents , buying them all a $ 1,000 pc each is only $ 4.4 million .
There 's about 100 offices , an incredibly decent server for each of them would be about 100k each ( $ 10 mill ) .
So where does the $ 187 mill come in ?
And where do I bid for the contract ? Now I know how companies like EDS take truckloads of cash home.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only 4,400 agents, buying them all a $1,000 pc each is only $4.4 million.
There's about 100 offices, an incredibly decent server for each of them would be about 100k each ($10 mill).
So where does the $187 mill come in?
And where do I bid for the contract?Now I know how companies like EDS take truckloads of cash home...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31324912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31336426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31300166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0018256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31301738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31336426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31300166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31324912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31301738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31296054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31297232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31295166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0018256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31293308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31294092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0018256.31298466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
