<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_1435219</id>
	<title>Design and Evaluation of Central Control Room Operations</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267465080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>brothke writes <i>"In aviation today, technically advanced airplanes present a unique paradox. Technically advanced airplanes, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are fewer accidents. But without proper training for their pilots, they could be less safe than airplanes with less available safety.  The FAA found that without proper training for the pilots who fly them, technically advanced airplanes don't advance safety at all. The reason is that technically advanced airplanes present challenges that under-prepared pilots might not be equipped to handle."</i> Read on for the rest of the review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>brothke writes " In aviation today , technically advanced airplanes present a unique paradox .
Technically advanced airplanes , in theory , have more available safety , and the outcome should be that there are fewer accidents .
But without proper training for their pilots , they could be less safe than airplanes with less available safety .
The FAA found that without proper training for the pilots who fly them , technically advanced airplanes do n't advance safety at all .
The reason is that technically advanced airplanes present challenges that under-prepared pilots might not be equipped to handle .
" Read on for the rest of the review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>brothke writes "In aviation today, technically advanced airplanes present a unique paradox.
Technically advanced airplanes, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are fewer accidents.
But without proper training for their pilots, they could be less safe than airplanes with less available safety.
The FAA found that without proper training for the pilots who fly them, technically advanced airplanes don't advance safety at all.
The reason is that technically advanced airplanes present challenges that under-prepared pilots might not be equipped to handle.
" Read on for the rest of the review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318990</id>
	<title>I don't think that means what you think it means..</title>
	<author>VoxMagis</author>
	<datestamp>1267469580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong summary much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong summary much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong summary much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31381592</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>joshuac</author>
	<datestamp>1267899660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>---snip<br><i>an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.</i><br>---snip</p><p>Are you kidding?  In almost any case (any production car, there are a few narrow market industrial/non-street legal vehicles this isn't the case) the exact opposite is true, usually by a large (very large) margin.  Compare vehicle 60 to 0 distances vs. 0 to 60 distances and compare weight.  For example, a 638HP, 3350LB 2010 Corvette takes 3.3 seconds to accelerate 0-60.  The brakes on a meek 3400LB 2010 (~150 HP) Toyota Camry are more powerful.</p><p>A experienced, safety-conscious driver such as yourself should take your car out on your next local track day, setup your G Meter, and do some runs and you'll see the margin of difference built in (margin will actually be under represented of what you would have in an actual throttle-on condition if your vehicle has a front weight bias; which is usually the case).  Then do an open throttle/full brake run, see which side wins very quickly to confirm for yourself in the real world what would happen.</p><p>Incidentally:<br>---snip<br><i>I suppose if it was one of those "key must be present" cars with the fancy starter button, he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range, but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening.</i><br>---snip</p><p>Yes.  Think of what a disaster on the highway it would be if the engine ever cut out on a driver because the keyfob was briefly unreadable.  I own two of those "fancy starter button" cars, neither will cut the engine when the fob is out of range (in both cases you'll get a warning on the dash, and once the engine is off, you won't be able to restart).  Both will allow you to switch off the engine under throttle by pressing the button (and of course, in both cases, simply braking would be the best response).  In one car (probably all I'd assume) when you press the stop/start button while in gear instructions flash up prominently to continue to press to cut the engine.  Also, many (most?) modern cars with a physical rotating key lock aren't physically tied to anything more than an ignition button on the shifter is; there's no functional advantage or disadvantage (other than perhaps a user interface preference) of many key operated ignition switches over a button press ignition switches.</p><p>Incidentally:<br>---snip<br><i>If the driver had been able to idle the engine, NEUTRAL would have worked. But he couldn't, and the interlock (a safety feature) worked against him. So on to the next attempt...</i><br>---snip</p><p>Automatic transmission lock (just like cruise control) is almost always tied to your brake lights.  If your brake lights are on, you can move the selector lever to neutral irregardless of inputs from the engine side of the transmission.  A manual transmission is very difficult (to impossible) to pull out of gear under acceleration of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>---snipan experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes , the engine will win , so it 's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.---snipAre you kidding ?
In almost any case ( any production car , there are a few narrow market industrial/non-street legal vehicles this is n't the case ) the exact opposite is true , usually by a large ( very large ) margin .
Compare vehicle 60 to 0 distances vs. 0 to 60 distances and compare weight .
For example , a 638HP , 3350LB 2010 Corvette takes 3.3 seconds to accelerate 0-60 .
The brakes on a meek 3400LB 2010 ( ~ 150 HP ) Toyota Camry are more powerful.A experienced , safety-conscious driver such as yourself should take your car out on your next local track day , setup your G Meter , and do some runs and you 'll see the margin of difference built in ( margin will actually be under represented of what you would have in an actual throttle-on condition if your vehicle has a front weight bias ; which is usually the case ) .
Then do an open throttle/full brake run , see which side wins very quickly to confirm for yourself in the real world what would happen.Incidentally : ---snipI suppose if it was one of those " key must be present " cars with the fancy starter button , he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range , but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening.---snipYes .
Think of what a disaster on the highway it would be if the engine ever cut out on a driver because the keyfob was briefly unreadable .
I own two of those " fancy starter button " cars , neither will cut the engine when the fob is out of range ( in both cases you 'll get a warning on the dash , and once the engine is off , you wo n't be able to restart ) .
Both will allow you to switch off the engine under throttle by pressing the button ( and of course , in both cases , simply braking would be the best response ) .
In one car ( probably all I 'd assume ) when you press the stop/start button while in gear instructions flash up prominently to continue to press to cut the engine .
Also , many ( most ?
) modern cars with a physical rotating key lock are n't physically tied to anything more than an ignition button on the shifter is ; there 's no functional advantage or disadvantage ( other than perhaps a user interface preference ) of many key operated ignition switches over a button press ignition switches.Incidentally : ---snipIf the driver had been able to idle the engine , NEUTRAL would have worked .
But he could n't , and the interlock ( a safety feature ) worked against him .
So on to the next attempt...---snipAutomatic transmission lock ( just like cruise control ) is almost always tied to your brake lights .
If your brake lights are on , you can move the selector lever to neutral irregardless of inputs from the engine side of the transmission .
A manual transmission is very difficult ( to impossible ) to pull out of gear under acceleration of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>---snipan experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.---snipAre you kidding?
In almost any case (any production car, there are a few narrow market industrial/non-street legal vehicles this isn't the case) the exact opposite is true, usually by a large (very large) margin.
Compare vehicle 60 to 0 distances vs. 0 to 60 distances and compare weight.
For example, a 638HP, 3350LB 2010 Corvette takes 3.3 seconds to accelerate 0-60.
The brakes on a meek 3400LB 2010 (~150 HP) Toyota Camry are more powerful.A experienced, safety-conscious driver such as yourself should take your car out on your next local track day, setup your G Meter, and do some runs and you'll see the margin of difference built in (margin will actually be under represented of what you would have in an actual throttle-on condition if your vehicle has a front weight bias; which is usually the case).
Then do an open throttle/full brake run, see which side wins very quickly to confirm for yourself in the real world what would happen.Incidentally:---snipI suppose if it was one of those "key must be present" cars with the fancy starter button, he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range, but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening.---snipYes.
Think of what a disaster on the highway it would be if the engine ever cut out on a driver because the keyfob was briefly unreadable.
I own two of those "fancy starter button" cars, neither will cut the engine when the fob is out of range (in both cases you'll get a warning on the dash, and once the engine is off, you won't be able to restart).
Both will allow you to switch off the engine under throttle by pressing the button (and of course, in both cases, simply braking would be the best response).
In one car (probably all I'd assume) when you press the stop/start button while in gear instructions flash up prominently to continue to press to cut the engine.
Also, many (most?
) modern cars with a physical rotating key lock aren't physically tied to anything more than an ignition button on the shifter is; there's no functional advantage or disadvantage (other than perhaps a user interface preference) of many key operated ignition switches over a button press ignition switches.Incidentally:---snipIf the driver had been able to idle the engine, NEUTRAL would have worked.
But he couldn't, and the interlock (a safety feature) worked against him.
So on to the next attempt...---snipAutomatic transmission lock (just like cruise control) is almost always tied to your brake lights.
If your brake lights are on, you can move the selector lever to neutral irregardless of inputs from the engine side of the transmission.
A manual transmission is very difficult (to impossible) to pull out of gear under acceleration of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320098</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised, sadly...</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1267473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup.</i></p><p>Except that, for the keyboard drivers, Office 2007 <i>does</i> continue to recognize the old office shortcuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs , with no simply way to revert to the old setup.Except that , for the keyboard drivers , Office 2007 does continue to recognize the old office shortcuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup.Except that, for the keyboard drivers, Office 2007 does continue to recognize the old office shortcuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319756</id>
	<title>Tautologist ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267472640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of this article must be a tautologist!</p><p>XKCD address this a while ago.</p><p>http://xkcd.com/703/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of this article must be a tautologist ! XKCD address this a while ago.http : //xkcd.com/703/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of this article must be a tautologist!XKCD address this a while ago.http://xkcd.com/703/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31334890</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>scholl\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1267521900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears that slashdot readers also don't know how to stop a car suffering from "unintended acceleration".
Modern cars - the ones most likely to have this happen - have throttle controls that prevent the engine from over-revving.  If one turns off the key, the power steering and power brakes no longer are effective (or as effective) and the car can be hard or impossible to control.  Just pushing hard on the brake pedal can be futile because the transmission downshifts, thinking the car is going uphill.  So --- the solution is to shift the transmission into neutral.  The engine will speed up to near maximum rpm but will not be destroyed.  Then push hard on the brake pedal to bring the car to a stop.  Only then turn the key off.  It is also important not to pump the brake pedal because that uses up the vacuum storage, and with the engine near full throttle there is little ability to recover the vacuum.
Several European manufacturers have so-called "smart throttles" which are disabled when the brake is pushed, a simple thing which prevents this from being a crisis happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that slashdot readers also do n't know how to stop a car suffering from " unintended acceleration " .
Modern cars - the ones most likely to have this happen - have throttle controls that prevent the engine from over-revving .
If one turns off the key , the power steering and power brakes no longer are effective ( or as effective ) and the car can be hard or impossible to control .
Just pushing hard on the brake pedal can be futile because the transmission downshifts , thinking the car is going uphill .
So --- the solution is to shift the transmission into neutral .
The engine will speed up to near maximum rpm but will not be destroyed .
Then push hard on the brake pedal to bring the car to a stop .
Only then turn the key off .
It is also important not to pump the brake pedal because that uses up the vacuum storage , and with the engine near full throttle there is little ability to recover the vacuum .
Several European manufacturers have so-called " smart throttles " which are disabled when the brake is pushed , a simple thing which prevents this from being a crisis happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that slashdot readers also don't know how to stop a car suffering from "unintended acceleration".
Modern cars - the ones most likely to have this happen - have throttle controls that prevent the engine from over-revving.
If one turns off the key, the power steering and power brakes no longer are effective (or as effective) and the car can be hard or impossible to control.
Just pushing hard on the brake pedal can be futile because the transmission downshifts, thinking the car is going uphill.
So --- the solution is to shift the transmission into neutral.
The engine will speed up to near maximum rpm but will not be destroyed.
Then push hard on the brake pedal to bring the car to a stop.
Only then turn the key off.
It is also important not to pump the brake pedal because that uses up the vacuum storage, and with the engine near full throttle there is little ability to recover the vacuum.
Several European manufacturers have so-called "smart throttles" which are disabled when the brake is pushed, a simple thing which prevents this from being a crisis happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31327028</id>
	<title>Re:Fridge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267471440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like a person in the know, thanks for the good comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like a person in the know , thanks for the good comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like a person in the know, thanks for the good comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321146</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, someone hit the CAD program right after watching Minority Report, didn't they?</p><p>I toured a company (big web analytics company in Utah) awhile back and they showed us a NOC that was so impractically designed, I honestly thought it was fictional-- I actually told my co-workers, "I bet that's just for showing during tours, and the real NOC is in the basement somewhere." I wonder if the two or three guys who were staffing it were just shoved in there and told, "look busy! There's a tour coming through!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , someone hit the CAD program right after watching Minority Report , did n't they ? I toured a company ( big web analytics company in Utah ) awhile back and they showed us a NOC that was so impractically designed , I honestly thought it was fictional-- I actually told my co-workers , " I bet that 's just for showing during tours , and the real NOC is in the basement somewhere .
" I wonder if the two or three guys who were staffing it were just shoved in there and told , " look busy !
There 's a tour coming through !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, someone hit the CAD program right after watching Minority Report, didn't they?I toured a company (big web analytics company in Utah) awhile back and they showed us a NOC that was so impractically designed, I honestly thought it was fictional-- I actually told my co-workers, "I bet that's just for showing during tours, and the real NOC is in the basement somewhere.
" I wonder if the two or three guys who were staffing it were just shoved in there and told, "look busy!
There's a tour coming through!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319314</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1267471080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how ABS would make pumping less effective, other than the fact that the jolting can be scary or surprising the first time you try it. You'll brake less effectively than if you just slammed the brake and let ABS do its job, but at least as effectively as without ABS.</p><p>It took me a while to get used to steering while slamming the brake though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how ABS would make pumping less effective , other than the fact that the jolting can be scary or surprising the first time you try it .
You 'll brake less effectively than if you just slammed the brake and let ABS do its job , but at least as effectively as without ABS.It took me a while to get used to steering while slamming the brake though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how ABS would make pumping less effective, other than the fact that the jolting can be scary or surprising the first time you try it.
You'll brake less effectively than if you just slammed the brake and let ABS do its job, but at least as effectively as without ABS.It took me a while to get used to steering while slamming the brake though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319100</id>
	<title>"I was using a technically advanced airplane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267470180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it was all like 'beepbeepbeep', and I was like 'huh?'  It devoured my airplane.  And it was a really good airplane."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it was all like 'beepbeepbeep ' , and I was like 'huh ?
' It devoured my airplane .
And it was a really good airplane .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it was all like 'beepbeepbeep', and I was like 'huh?
'  It devoured my airplane.
And it was a really good airplane.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319718</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote</title>
	<author>AnotherShep</author>
	<datestamp>1267472460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I almost had a crash due to ABS too.  <br> <br>

A sensor failed spectacularly.  The car rolled into an intersection because there was no pressure being applied to the brakes.  It sure kept straight, though!<br> <br>

Manual transmission and no ABS for me now, thankyouverymuch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost had a crash due to ABS too .
A sensor failed spectacularly .
The car rolled into an intersection because there was no pressure being applied to the brakes .
It sure kept straight , though !
Manual transmission and no ABS for me now , thankyouverymuch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost had a crash due to ABS too.
A sensor failed spectacularly.
The car rolled into an intersection because there was no pressure being applied to the brakes.
It sure kept straight, though!
Manual transmission and no ABS for me now, thankyouverymuch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320004</id>
	<title>Re:Technically Advanced probably means....</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1267473540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah, I'll admit - I chuckled a bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , I 'll admit - I chuckled a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, I'll admit - I chuckled a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is hardly unique to aviation.</p><p>I drive a manual transmission car that possesses a simple key.  Should my accelerator go apeshit on me (whether this was a stuck floor mat or a software problem in the accelerator), I have several options to stop the engine from pouring speed into the chassis.  Among others, I can push down the clutch pedal (resulting in the engine possibly revving itself to death, but with me able to bring the car to a controlled, if very noisy and probably engine-fatal, stop), and I can turn the key to the Accessory position (which will disable my power steering and the power assist on the brakes, but I can also let up on the clutch to use the engine as a brake and give me back some hydraulic assist).  Turning the key into the OFF position locks the steering wheel, which is bad mojo, but at least if I overreact on that one I can get the car slowed down before I hit whatever is in front of me.</p><p>The Lexus involved in the much-discussed incident had safety features galore, and was driven by an experienced driver.  However, some of the safety features certainly contributed to the accident.  Setting aside the likelihood of noticing that a floor mat was stuck under the go pedal and having the time and clarity of thought to reach down and pull it out while the car is accelerating wildly into traffic...  an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.</p><p>I've had this happen, and in my case it was a poorly-wired cruise control (aftermarket, that was installed by an idiot apparently).  So my first instinct was to tap the brakes, which disengaged the cruise and all was well, I pulled over and physically disconnected the cruise control from the throttle.  Obviously, that wasn't the problem here, so the driver probably moved on to another logical step.</p><p>In my case, that would be taking the car out of gear.  Safety feature #1 comes into play.  The car was an automatic, and the interlock prevented the transmission and/or engine from being damaged.  It ignored NEUTRAL and REVERSE settings while at speed and under heavy acceleration. If the driver had been able to idle the engine, NEUTRAL would have worked.  But he couldn't, and the interlock (a safety feature) worked against him.  So on to the next attempt...</p><p>I'd continue by turning off the key, which will cause sudden deceleration, a certain amount of loss of control, but will get the engine out of play.  However, in this case the starter mechanism was a button that you'd normally push to turn the engine off at idle, but to keep some idiot from pushing the button at speed and shutting down the car, the car ignored all but a 3-second push to the button when the car was in operation.  Unless you had (trivial but necessary) specialized training in how that button worked, you might not think about doing that.</p><p>I suppose if it was one of those "key must be present" cars with the fancy starter button, he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range, but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>So, there are at least two cases where safety features built into the controls of the car made the car paradoxically less safe, at least under these specific circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is hardly unique to aviation.I drive a manual transmission car that possesses a simple key .
Should my accelerator go apeshit on me ( whether this was a stuck floor mat or a software problem in the accelerator ) , I have several options to stop the engine from pouring speed into the chassis .
Among others , I can push down the clutch pedal ( resulting in the engine possibly revving itself to death , but with me able to bring the car to a controlled , if very noisy and probably engine-fatal , stop ) , and I can turn the key to the Accessory position ( which will disable my power steering and the power assist on the brakes , but I can also let up on the clutch to use the engine as a brake and give me back some hydraulic assist ) .
Turning the key into the OFF position locks the steering wheel , which is bad mojo , but at least if I overreact on that one I can get the car slowed down before I hit whatever is in front of me.The Lexus involved in the much-discussed incident had safety features galore , and was driven by an experienced driver .
However , some of the safety features certainly contributed to the accident .
Setting aside the likelihood of noticing that a floor mat was stuck under the go pedal and having the time and clarity of thought to reach down and pull it out while the car is accelerating wildly into traffic... an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes , the engine will win , so it 's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.I 've had this happen , and in my case it was a poorly-wired cruise control ( aftermarket , that was installed by an idiot apparently ) .
So my first instinct was to tap the brakes , which disengaged the cruise and all was well , I pulled over and physically disconnected the cruise control from the throttle .
Obviously , that was n't the problem here , so the driver probably moved on to another logical step.In my case , that would be taking the car out of gear .
Safety feature # 1 comes into play .
The car was an automatic , and the interlock prevented the transmission and/or engine from being damaged .
It ignored NEUTRAL and REVERSE settings while at speed and under heavy acceleration .
If the driver had been able to idle the engine , NEUTRAL would have worked .
But he could n't , and the interlock ( a safety feature ) worked against him .
So on to the next attempt...I 'd continue by turning off the key , which will cause sudden deceleration , a certain amount of loss of control , but will get the engine out of play .
However , in this case the starter mechanism was a button that you 'd normally push to turn the engine off at idle , but to keep some idiot from pushing the button at speed and shutting down the car , the car ignored all but a 3-second push to the button when the car was in operation .
Unless you had ( trivial but necessary ) specialized training in how that button worked , you might not think about doing that.I suppose if it was one of those " key must be present " cars with the fancy starter button , he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range , but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening .
: ) So , there are at least two cases where safety features built into the controls of the car made the car paradoxically less safe , at least under these specific circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is hardly unique to aviation.I drive a manual transmission car that possesses a simple key.
Should my accelerator go apeshit on me (whether this was a stuck floor mat or a software problem in the accelerator), I have several options to stop the engine from pouring speed into the chassis.
Among others, I can push down the clutch pedal (resulting in the engine possibly revving itself to death, but with me able to bring the car to a controlled, if very noisy and probably engine-fatal, stop), and I can turn the key to the Accessory position (which will disable my power steering and the power assist on the brakes, but I can also let up on the clutch to use the engine as a brake and give me back some hydraulic assist).
Turning the key into the OFF position locks the steering wheel, which is bad mojo, but at least if I overreact on that one I can get the car slowed down before I hit whatever is in front of me.The Lexus involved in the much-discussed incident had safety features galore, and was driven by an experienced driver.
However, some of the safety features certainly contributed to the accident.
Setting aside the likelihood of noticing that a floor mat was stuck under the go pedal and having the time and clarity of thought to reach down and pull it out while the car is accelerating wildly into traffic...  an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.I've had this happen, and in my case it was a poorly-wired cruise control (aftermarket, that was installed by an idiot apparently).
So my first instinct was to tap the brakes, which disengaged the cruise and all was well, I pulled over and physically disconnected the cruise control from the throttle.
Obviously, that wasn't the problem here, so the driver probably moved on to another logical step.In my case, that would be taking the car out of gear.
Safety feature #1 comes into play.
The car was an automatic, and the interlock prevented the transmission and/or engine from being damaged.
It ignored NEUTRAL and REVERSE settings while at speed and under heavy acceleration.
If the driver had been able to idle the engine, NEUTRAL would have worked.
But he couldn't, and the interlock (a safety feature) worked against him.
So on to the next attempt...I'd continue by turning off the key, which will cause sudden deceleration, a certain amount of loss of control, but will get the engine out of play.
However, in this case the starter mechanism was a button that you'd normally push to turn the engine off at idle, but to keep some idiot from pushing the button at speed and shutting down the car, the car ignored all but a 3-second push to the button when the car was in operation.
Unless you had (trivial but necessary) specialized training in how that button worked, you might not think about doing that.I suppose if it was one of those "key must be present" cars with the fancy starter button, he could have thrown the keyfob out the window and hoped the engine would shut itself down once the keyfob was out of range, but I expect another safety feature would have prevented that from happening.
:)So, there are at least two cases where safety features built into the controls of the car made the car paradoxically less safe, at least under these specific circumstances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31325066</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>adrianturner</author>
	<datestamp>1267452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like the designer had just finished watching Men In Black...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the designer had just finished watching Men In Black.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the designer had just finished watching Men In Black...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322878</id>
	<title>Welcome N00b!</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1267441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The appropriate response would be tl;dr
<br> <br>
Enjoy the rest of your stay!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The appropriate response would be tl ; dr Enjoy the rest of your stay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The appropriate response would be tl;dr
 
Enjoy the rest of your stay!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319280</id>
	<title>Nagios</title>
	<author>flok</author>
	<datestamp>1267470900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I designed a Nagios interface especially for Control Rooms. My program can be run on a large screen hanging on the wall and then display a list of problems. Of course has a nice web-interface for remote configuration<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br>
<br>
It is called <a href="http://vanheusden.com/java/CoffeeSaint/" title="vanheusden.com">CoffeeSaint</a> [vanheusden.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I designed a Nagios interface especially for Control Rooms .
My program can be run on a large screen hanging on the wall and then display a list of problems .
Of course has a nice web-interface for remote configuration ; - ) It is called CoffeeSaint [ vanheusden.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I designed a Nagios interface especially for Control Rooms.
My program can be run on a large screen hanging on the wall and then display a list of problems.
Of course has a nice web-interface for remote configuration ;-)

It is called CoffeeSaint [vanheusden.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320888</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>theArtificial</author>
	<datestamp>1267477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say this as someone who doesn't work in the industry - what a cool design. Completely back asswards in some respects but it looks cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this as someone who does n't work in the industry - what a cool design .
Completely back asswards in some respects but it looks cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this as someone who doesn't work in the industry - what a cool design.
Completely back asswards in some respects but it looks cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424</id>
	<title>Fridge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267471440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The authors note that all SOC and NOC's have a common feature in that the people operating them are often remote from the processes that they are monitoring and controlling, and the operations function on a 24/7 basis. The many demands of remote and continuous operation place special considerations on the design of the SOC and NOC. The output of the book is that it can be used to effectively to design these operating centers.</p></div><p>You need a big fridge, and a microwave.</p><p>Another common feature is at least of all NOCs I've seen is marketing wants the most stylish looking facility they can get, which is often/always completely at odds with the goals of an effective facility.</p><p>Common noc mistakes:</p><p>1) Everyone crammed in like sardines so "we can work together".  Except that no one noticed that we don't work together.  All it makes is a lot of noise and interference.  No space to open a stack of manuals, closely related to no space for usable computer monitors (as opposed to the ones used only for show).  Even worse, designers seem addicted to adding "static noise" masking generator, crappy elevator music, and/or a PA system for other departments blaring away.  Thru careful work, its possible to include features to make it look like its ideal for cooperation, yet make actual cooperation impossible due to noise level etc.</p><p>2) Extraordinarily expensive big screen TVs / monitors / projectors on all the forward facing walls, that no one actually uses.  Too small, too low res, no actual business purpose.  This is a killer two ways, first of all its a huge capital expense that could have paid the salary for extra techs for years, which would have a measurable positive effect.  The other way its a killer is you'll actually take people off productive work to "fix" the big screens so marketing is happy.  Would anyone in the NOC have a problem doing their job if all the projector bulbs burned out?  No, but marketing would freak out.</p><p>3) Second class citizen status.  "Real" employees can have family pictures in their work area.  The dogs of the "noc", not so much.  This attitude flows thru the organization in many other ways, producing discontent.  Promotion out of the noc becomes a goal, not to "advance" but just to get the hell out.</p><p>4) Constant over the shoulder monitoring.  No matter if its marketing, or management, there seems an utterly desperate desire to perch over the NOC workers shoulders, either physically or virtually.  A great employer-employee attitude if you are 17 years old and working at taco bell.  Not a great attitude in a professional noc environment.  There seems something inherent in all NOC management that makes them distrust their employees, that you generally don't see in most other departments.  Kind of like having the ability to treat them as serfs inevitably makes it a requirement to treat them like serfs.</p><p>5) You know those 1970's "sunken livingrooms"?  alive and well in the nocs of the world.  How about the 1960s original star trek theatre in the round concept with a bridge in the middle?  alive and well in the nocs of the world.  Remember the set of "wargames" from 1983?  Why can't a noc be designed that doesn't look like a throwback or parody?  At least try something different, like a medieval dungeon or something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors note that all SOC and NOC 's have a common feature in that the people operating them are often remote from the processes that they are monitoring and controlling , and the operations function on a 24/7 basis .
The many demands of remote and continuous operation place special considerations on the design of the SOC and NOC .
The output of the book is that it can be used to effectively to design these operating centers.You need a big fridge , and a microwave.Another common feature is at least of all NOCs I 've seen is marketing wants the most stylish looking facility they can get , which is often/always completely at odds with the goals of an effective facility.Common noc mistakes : 1 ) Everyone crammed in like sardines so " we can work together " .
Except that no one noticed that we do n't work together .
All it makes is a lot of noise and interference .
No space to open a stack of manuals , closely related to no space for usable computer monitors ( as opposed to the ones used only for show ) .
Even worse , designers seem addicted to adding " static noise " masking generator , crappy elevator music , and/or a PA system for other departments blaring away .
Thru careful work , its possible to include features to make it look like its ideal for cooperation , yet make actual cooperation impossible due to noise level etc.2 ) Extraordinarily expensive big screen TVs / monitors / projectors on all the forward facing walls , that no one actually uses .
Too small , too low res , no actual business purpose .
This is a killer two ways , first of all its a huge capital expense that could have paid the salary for extra techs for years , which would have a measurable positive effect .
The other way its a killer is you 'll actually take people off productive work to " fix " the big screens so marketing is happy .
Would anyone in the NOC have a problem doing their job if all the projector bulbs burned out ?
No , but marketing would freak out.3 ) Second class citizen status .
" Real " employees can have family pictures in their work area .
The dogs of the " noc " , not so much .
This attitude flows thru the organization in many other ways , producing discontent .
Promotion out of the noc becomes a goal , not to " advance " but just to get the hell out.4 ) Constant over the shoulder monitoring .
No matter if its marketing , or management , there seems an utterly desperate desire to perch over the NOC workers shoulders , either physically or virtually .
A great employer-employee attitude if you are 17 years old and working at taco bell .
Not a great attitude in a professional noc environment .
There seems something inherent in all NOC management that makes them distrust their employees , that you generally do n't see in most other departments .
Kind of like having the ability to treat them as serfs inevitably makes it a requirement to treat them like serfs.5 ) You know those 1970 's " sunken livingrooms " ?
alive and well in the nocs of the world .
How about the 1960s original star trek theatre in the round concept with a bridge in the middle ?
alive and well in the nocs of the world .
Remember the set of " wargames " from 1983 ?
Why ca n't a noc be designed that does n't look like a throwback or parody ?
At least try something different , like a medieval dungeon or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors note that all SOC and NOC's have a common feature in that the people operating them are often remote from the processes that they are monitoring and controlling, and the operations function on a 24/7 basis.
The many demands of remote and continuous operation place special considerations on the design of the SOC and NOC.
The output of the book is that it can be used to effectively to design these operating centers.You need a big fridge, and a microwave.Another common feature is at least of all NOCs I've seen is marketing wants the most stylish looking facility they can get, which is often/always completely at odds with the goals of an effective facility.Common noc mistakes:1) Everyone crammed in like sardines so "we can work together".
Except that no one noticed that we don't work together.
All it makes is a lot of noise and interference.
No space to open a stack of manuals, closely related to no space for usable computer monitors (as opposed to the ones used only for show).
Even worse, designers seem addicted to adding "static noise" masking generator, crappy elevator music, and/or a PA system for other departments blaring away.
Thru careful work, its possible to include features to make it look like its ideal for cooperation, yet make actual cooperation impossible due to noise level etc.2) Extraordinarily expensive big screen TVs / monitors / projectors on all the forward facing walls, that no one actually uses.
Too small, too low res, no actual business purpose.
This is a killer two ways, first of all its a huge capital expense that could have paid the salary for extra techs for years, which would have a measurable positive effect.
The other way its a killer is you'll actually take people off productive work to "fix" the big screens so marketing is happy.
Would anyone in the NOC have a problem doing their job if all the projector bulbs burned out?
No, but marketing would freak out.3) Second class citizen status.
"Real" employees can have family pictures in their work area.
The dogs of the "noc", not so much.
This attitude flows thru the organization in many other ways, producing discontent.
Promotion out of the noc becomes a goal, not to "advance" but just to get the hell out.4) Constant over the shoulder monitoring.
No matter if its marketing, or management, there seems an utterly desperate desire to perch over the NOC workers shoulders, either physically or virtually.
A great employer-employee attitude if you are 17 years old and working at taco bell.
Not a great attitude in a professional noc environment.
There seems something inherent in all NOC management that makes them distrust their employees, that you generally don't see in most other departments.
Kind of like having the ability to treat them as serfs inevitably makes it a requirement to treat them like serfs.5) You know those 1970's "sunken livingrooms"?
alive and well in the nocs of the world.
How about the 1960s original star trek theatre in the round concept with a bridge in the middle?
alive and well in the nocs of the world.
Remember the set of "wargames" from 1983?
Why can't a noc be designed that doesn't look like a throwback or parody?
At least try something different, like a medieval dungeon or something?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31331202</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>zeet</author>
	<datestamp>1267551480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.</p><p>No. The brakes win on any car modern enough to have seatbelts - provided that you brake like you mean it. If you drag the brakes for two miles before deciding to actually get on them, of course the fluid will long since have boiled. That is what happened in this case. If you make the 'I need to stop now, this car is out of control' call and use the brake with authority you can bring the car to a complete stop.</p><p>I'm more worried about the start-stop button. Taking a three second press to turn off in some circumstances is obvious to us (PCs do the same thing) but would it be obvious in a car? We will end up with a label because of this, just you watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes , the engine will win , so it 's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.No .
The brakes win on any car modern enough to have seatbelts - provided that you brake like you mean it .
If you drag the brakes for two miles before deciding to actually get on them , of course the fluid will long since have boiled .
That is what happened in this case .
If you make the 'I need to stop now , this car is out of control ' call and use the brake with authority you can bring the car to a complete stop.I 'm more worried about the start-stop button .
Taking a three second press to turn off in some circumstances is obvious to us ( PCs do the same thing ) but would it be obvious in a car ?
We will end up with a label because of this , just you watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; an experienced driver knows that in a battle between engine and brakes, the engine will win, so it's utterly vital to get the engine out of play early on.No.
The brakes win on any car modern enough to have seatbelts - provided that you brake like you mean it.
If you drag the brakes for two miles before deciding to actually get on them, of course the fluid will long since have boiled.
That is what happened in this case.
If you make the 'I need to stop now, this car is out of control' call and use the brake with authority you can bring the car to a complete stop.I'm more worried about the start-stop button.
Taking a three second press to turn off in some circumstances is obvious to us (PCs do the same thing) but would it be obvious in a car?
We will end up with a label because of this, just you watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842</id>
	<title>Technically Advanced probably means....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are running Linux, thus making it unnecessarily complicated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are running Linux , thus making it unnecessarily complicated : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are running Linux, thus making it unnecessarily complicated :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329834</id>
	<title>Re:Fridge?</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267545180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen some small-scale NOCs that made effective use of large screens.... (LCD, not projector).     The staff had personal space/desks - complete with family photos, and the shared screens were there for whatever the NOC staff there at the time felt them best used for at any given moment.   If nothing was going on, that might be watching funny youtube videos, but generally it would be wahtever aspect of the current incident was important to the group as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen some small-scale NOCs that made effective use of large screens.... ( LCD , not projector ) .
The staff had personal space/desks - complete with family photos , and the shared screens were there for whatever the NOC staff there at the time felt them best used for at any given moment .
If nothing was going on , that might be watching funny youtube videos , but generally it would be wahtever aspect of the current incident was important to the group as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen some small-scale NOCs that made effective use of large screens.... (LCD, not projector).
The staff had personal space/desks - complete with family photos, and the shared screens were there for whatever the NOC staff there at the time felt them best used for at any given moment.
If nothing was going on, that might be watching funny youtube videos, but generally it would be wahtever aspect of the current incident was important to the group as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326966</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267470720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Toyota put $$ over quality, that is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Toyota put $ $ over quality , that is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toyota put $$ over quality, that is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319120</id>
	<title>Eh....</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1267470240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not really a paradox. The simple solution is this: upgrade the technologies as the budget allows and train the damned pilots. It's not the kind of system where you have to have everything happen at once - this can definitely be done in phases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really a paradox .
The simple solution is this : upgrade the technologies as the budget allows and train the damned pilots .
It 's not the kind of system where you have to have everything happen at once - this can definitely be done in phases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really a paradox.
The simple solution is this: upgrade the technologies as the budget allows and train the damned pilots.
It's not the kind of system where you have to have everything happen at once - this can definitely be done in phases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321376</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>rekees</author>
	<datestamp>1267435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is commonly rendered invisible in its simplicity, especially in IT deployments: striking the balance between what developers want and what users want is seldom the goal.</p><p>An ethical developer should care about how the code is used, how the application will 'feel' to the user; too many developers laugh at this statement, unless they write games.<br>Conversely, an ethical manager should respect the sometimes incredible effort and dedication developers have to put in to come up with a decent product given superficial requirements.</p><p>Ethical people care about their environment and how they affect others, just like a good flight controller's team. For this reason, besides other obvious ones, they use very inflexible software, such as ADA, to run their core applications. This is again ethical because it strips down a developer's choices to script code that could bring about a plane collision probably during someone else's shift - I can only imagine what unreadable Perl or Python code would do to the safety of our aircraft. Most developers hate structured languages, but if one cares of the outcome and keep the job long enough, they get used to the tightness of the language and end up caring more of its application towards human interaction which can be really fun.</p><p>Establishing a culture of consistency is much harder nowadays when all young folks expect to change jobs every tow years; one cannot root ethics in short spurts. I hope we stop running soon, or we may be digging our own holes by running around our tails too much.<br>Thanks for the comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is commonly rendered invisible in its simplicity , especially in IT deployments : striking the balance between what developers want and what users want is seldom the goal.An ethical developer should care about how the code is used , how the application will 'feel ' to the user ; too many developers laugh at this statement , unless they write games.Conversely , an ethical manager should respect the sometimes incredible effort and dedication developers have to put in to come up with a decent product given superficial requirements.Ethical people care about their environment and how they affect others , just like a good flight controller 's team .
For this reason , besides other obvious ones , they use very inflexible software , such as ADA , to run their core applications .
This is again ethical because it strips down a developer 's choices to script code that could bring about a plane collision probably during someone else 's shift - I can only imagine what unreadable Perl or Python code would do to the safety of our aircraft .
Most developers hate structured languages , but if one cares of the outcome and keep the job long enough , they get used to the tightness of the language and end up caring more of its application towards human interaction which can be really fun.Establishing a culture of consistency is much harder nowadays when all young folks expect to change jobs every tow years ; one can not root ethics in short spurts .
I hope we stop running soon , or we may be digging our own holes by running around our tails too much.Thanks for the comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is commonly rendered invisible in its simplicity, especially in IT deployments: striking the balance between what developers want and what users want is seldom the goal.An ethical developer should care about how the code is used, how the application will 'feel' to the user; too many developers laugh at this statement, unless they write games.Conversely, an ethical manager should respect the sometimes incredible effort and dedication developers have to put in to come up with a decent product given superficial requirements.Ethical people care about their environment and how they affect others, just like a good flight controller's team.
For this reason, besides other obvious ones, they use very inflexible software, such as ADA, to run their core applications.
This is again ethical because it strips down a developer's choices to script code that could bring about a plane collision probably during someone else's shift - I can only imagine what unreadable Perl or Python code would do to the safety of our aircraft.
Most developers hate structured languages, but if one cares of the outcome and keep the job long enough, they get used to the tightness of the language and end up caring more of its application towards human interaction which can be really fun.Establishing a culture of consistency is much harder nowadays when all young folks expect to change jobs every tow years; one cannot root ethics in short spurts.
I hope we stop running soon, or we may be digging our own holes by running around our tails too much.Thanks for the comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318874</id>
	<title>Good, good...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1267469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fellow slashdotters - this is a book with tips for improving our own command centres!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fellow slashdotters - this is a book with tips for improving our own command centres !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fellow slashdotters - this is a book with tips for improving our own command centres!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036</id>
	<title>Anecdote</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267469820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
My one and only car crash, due to my fault, is due to ABS.  It was my first ABS car and I tried to pump the brake, and failed to stop before hitting the other car.
</p><p>
It was a minor fender bender, never mind any injury, but it burned it into my skull: slam the brake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My one and only car crash , due to my fault , is due to ABS .
It was my first ABS car and I tried to pump the brake , and failed to stop before hitting the other car .
It was a minor fender bender , never mind any injury , but it burned it into my skull : slam the brake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
My one and only car crash, due to my fault, is due to ABS.
It was my first ABS car and I tried to pump the brake, and failed to stop before hitting the other car.
It was a minor fender bender, never mind any injury, but it burned it into my skull: slam the brake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321236</id>
	<title>Re:Technically Advanced probably means....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>What technically advanced means is that we're American - we don't want to buy any complex European or Japanese machines, because they make our heads hurt when we read the manuals....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.What technically advanced means is that we 're American - we do n't want to buy any complex European or Japanese machines , because they make our heads hurt when we read the manuals... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.What technically advanced means is that we're American - we don't want to buy any complex European or Japanese machines, because they make our heads hurt when we read the manuals....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808</id>
	<title>Back in my day...</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1267472820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My late Grandfather used to tell me stories all the time of stuff that happened in the air traffic control tower at Charlotte-Douglas airport (he was the chief of the tower for 20 years).  99\% of the time, human error is to blame, for stuff like military pilots trying to land at the wrong airport and not listening to comms to stuff like poor pronounciation over comms to pilots causing close calls.   By the end of his career, he found that work ethic was more important than credentials, because laziness was the cause of a large majority of mishaps.  It is difficult to train work ethic, and easy to impart knowledge.</p><p>Rewarding diligence and establishing a culture of consistency was their solution.  I've seen it work in other industries over the years as well.  But, when you think about it, isn't it just common sense to do it?  Why do you need a book to explain that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My late Grandfather used to tell me stories all the time of stuff that happened in the air traffic control tower at Charlotte-Douglas airport ( he was the chief of the tower for 20 years ) .
99 \ % of the time , human error is to blame , for stuff like military pilots trying to land at the wrong airport and not listening to comms to stuff like poor pronounciation over comms to pilots causing close calls .
By the end of his career , he found that work ethic was more important than credentials , because laziness was the cause of a large majority of mishaps .
It is difficult to train work ethic , and easy to impart knowledge.Rewarding diligence and establishing a culture of consistency was their solution .
I 've seen it work in other industries over the years as well .
But , when you think about it , is n't it just common sense to do it ?
Why do you need a book to explain that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My late Grandfather used to tell me stories all the time of stuff that happened in the air traffic control tower at Charlotte-Douglas airport (he was the chief of the tower for 20 years).
99\% of the time, human error is to blame, for stuff like military pilots trying to land at the wrong airport and not listening to comms to stuff like poor pronounciation over comms to pilots causing close calls.
By the end of his career, he found that work ethic was more important than credentials, because laziness was the cause of a large majority of mishaps.
It is difficult to train work ethic, and easy to impart knowledge.Rewarding diligence and establishing a culture of consistency was their solution.
I've seen it work in other industries over the years as well.
But, when you think about it, isn't it just common sense to do it?
Why do you need a book to explain that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320798</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1267476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll bet that, within a year or two, the people who actually have to run the grid set up a "field control center" with about twenty people with PCs, cork boards on the walls, 2-way radios for talking to field crews, a conference/map table, and some printers. The real work will be done there. A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management.</p></div><p>At a previous employer, for a Very Important Photoshoot for marketing, they hired college age models to staff our center in the pictures, apparently because the real personnel were far too unphotogenic.  I believe the age of all the models added together still didn't reach the age of some of our old timers.</p><p>Kind of like how anytime you see a call center in marketing material, its always staffed by stereotypical beauty pageant white women, where in reality most (not all) call centers have been moved to prisons and 3rd world countries.  I've often wondered what the prisoners and 3rd worlders think when they see those advertisements (other than the obvious, americans are idiots, etc)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet that , within a year or two , the people who actually have to run the grid set up a " field control center " with about twenty people with PCs , cork boards on the walls , 2-way radios for talking to field crews , a conference/map table , and some printers .
The real work will be done there .
A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management.At a previous employer , for a Very Important Photoshoot for marketing , they hired college age models to staff our center in the pictures , apparently because the real personnel were far too unphotogenic .
I believe the age of all the models added together still did n't reach the age of some of our old timers.Kind of like how anytime you see a call center in marketing material , its always staffed by stereotypical beauty pageant white women , where in reality most ( not all ) call centers have been moved to prisons and 3rd world countries .
I 've often wondered what the prisoners and 3rd worlders think when they see those advertisements ( other than the obvious , americans are idiots , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet that, within a year or two, the people who actually have to run the grid set up a "field control center" with about twenty people with PCs, cork boards on the walls, 2-way radios for talking to field crews, a conference/map table, and some printers.
The real work will be done there.
A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management.At a previous employer, for a Very Important Photoshoot for marketing, they hired college age models to staff our center in the pictures, apparently because the real personnel were far too unphotogenic.
I believe the age of all the models added together still didn't reach the age of some of our old timers.Kind of like how anytime you see a call center in marketing material, its always staffed by stereotypical beauty pageant white women, where in reality most (not all) call centers have been moved to prisons and 3rd world countries.
I've often wondered what the prisoners and 3rd worlders think when they see those advertisements (other than the obvious, americans are idiots, etc)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not reading the review. If it's half as painful to read as the summary was, I think I'll save myself the agony.</p><p>Seriously, redundant much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not reading the review .
If it 's half as painful to read as the summary was , I think I 'll save myself the agony.Seriously , redundant much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not reading the review.
If it's half as painful to read as the summary was, I think I'll save myself the agony.Seriously, redundant much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319562</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised, sadly...</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1267471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That the advancement of technology and addition of features will require additional training in some respect. Driving an old automatic car is easy enough. You either hit gas or brake, and occasionally use reverse. Now let's add in cruise control and ABS, which some people seem to automatically think converts their beat-up jalopy into the KITT from Knight Rider, right before driving off the road. More features. Add in new switches and dials for controlling mirrors, lights, locks, etc. Despite the application of human factors analysis, the average Joe is not going to find the purpose of each and every button and dial intuitive and natural.

<br> <br>The notion that technology saves the day without introducing new tasks, quirks, and procedures is naive thinking at its worst. The Office 2007 ribbon might be a fair example. People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup. Fun times are had by all. Also, as noted above:<p><div class="quote"><p> Management often is oblivious to the fact that just because they can buy and install the software; that it will work on its own</p> </div><p>This tends to be responsible for about 90\% of all tech woes for deployments I've ever encountered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the advancement of technology and addition of features will require additional training in some respect .
Driving an old automatic car is easy enough .
You either hit gas or brake , and occasionally use reverse .
Now let 's add in cruise control and ABS , which some people seem to automatically think converts their beat-up jalopy into the KITT from Knight Rider , right before driving off the road .
More features .
Add in new switches and dials for controlling mirrors , lights , locks , etc .
Despite the application of human factors analysis , the average Joe is not going to find the purpose of each and every button and dial intuitive and natural .
The notion that technology saves the day without introducing new tasks , quirks , and procedures is naive thinking at its worst .
The Office 2007 ribbon might be a fair example .
People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs , with no simply way to revert to the old setup .
Fun times are had by all .
Also , as noted above : Management often is oblivious to the fact that just because they can buy and install the software ; that it will work on its own This tends to be responsible for about 90 \ % of all tech woes for deployments I 've ever encountered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the advancement of technology and addition of features will require additional training in some respect.
Driving an old automatic car is easy enough.
You either hit gas or brake, and occasionally use reverse.
Now let's add in cruise control and ABS, which some people seem to automatically think converts their beat-up jalopy into the KITT from Knight Rider, right before driving off the road.
More features.
Add in new switches and dials for controlling mirrors, lights, locks, etc.
Despite the application of human factors analysis, the average Joe is not going to find the purpose of each and every button and dial intuitive and natural.
The notion that technology saves the day without introducing new tasks, quirks, and procedures is naive thinking at its worst.
The Office 2007 ribbon might be a fair example.
People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup.
Fun times are had by all.
Also, as noted above: Management often is oblivious to the fact that just because they can buy and install the software; that it will work on its own This tends to be responsible for about 90\% of all tech woes for deployments I've ever encountered.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319488</id>
	<title>A distant relative Mercedes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267471680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A distant relative by marriage bought a top of line new Mercedes. He has to attend a Saturday long training class for four Saturdays. </p><p>After laughing in disbelief. I asked why does he need a training class. In a nutshell, apparently there's so much electronic bullshit (I guess to justify the price of the car somehow) that they need classes. GPSes, internet and whatnot</p><p>I started thinking about all that distraction for the driver. I can just see liability insurance eventually going through the roof - while the old rich guy is fucking around with his car, he goes and rear ends someone or runs over a pedestrian. </p><p>There's a point where all this complexity becomes counter productive and makes the car more unsafe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A distant relative by marriage bought a top of line new Mercedes .
He has to attend a Saturday long training class for four Saturdays .
After laughing in disbelief .
I asked why does he need a training class .
In a nutshell , apparently there 's so much electronic bullshit ( I guess to justify the price of the car somehow ) that they need classes .
GPSes , internet and whatnotI started thinking about all that distraction for the driver .
I can just see liability insurance eventually going through the roof - while the old rich guy is fucking around with his car , he goes and rear ends someone or runs over a pedestrian .
There 's a point where all this complexity becomes counter productive and makes the car more unsafe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A distant relative by marriage bought a top of line new Mercedes.
He has to attend a Saturday long training class for four Saturdays.
After laughing in disbelief.
I asked why does he need a training class.
In a nutshell, apparently there's so much electronic bullshit (I guess to justify the price of the car somehow) that they need classes.
GPSes, internet and whatnotI started thinking about all that distraction for the driver.
I can just see liability insurance eventually going through the roof - while the old rich guy is fucking around with his car, he goes and rear ends someone or runs over a pedestrian.
There's a point where all this complexity becomes counter productive and makes the car more unsafe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318994</id>
	<title>technically advanced ad naseum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically advanced airplanes are technically advanced. And airplanes that are technically advanced are advanced, technically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically advanced airplanes are technically advanced .
And airplanes that are technically advanced are advanced , technically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically advanced airplanes are technically advanced.
And airplanes that are technically advanced are advanced, technically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319290</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>Snarf You</author>
	<datestamp>1267471020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This could explain some of the Toyota crashes. The drivers don't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it's stuck.</p></div><p>I believe the safety manual recommends honking your horn repeatedly while screaming at the top of your lungs so as to attract the attention of others in your immediate vicinity, and once they are looking at you, raise your hands in the air (palms facing upward) with a shrugging motion so that they know there is nothing you can do to prevent their impending doom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could explain some of the Toyota crashes .
The drivers do n't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it 's stuck.I believe the safety manual recommends honking your horn repeatedly while screaming at the top of your lungs so as to attract the attention of others in your immediate vicinity , and once they are looking at you , raise your hands in the air ( palms facing upward ) with a shrugging motion so that they know there is nothing you can do to prevent their impending doom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could explain some of the Toyota crashes.
The drivers don't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it's stuck.I believe the safety manual recommends honking your horn repeatedly while screaming at the top of your lungs so as to attract the attention of others in your immediate vicinity, and once they are looking at you, raise your hands in the air (palms facing upward) with a shrugging motion so that they know there is nothing you can do to prevent their impending doom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320516</id>
	<title>Broader Lessons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a broader lesson to be drawn from this -- the ability of the staff to provide the correct results depends not only on their having the necessary tools and skills but being able to apply them effectively. What the FAA found in the latest Buffalo crash -- that the crew were so fatigued that their judgement was impaired applies elsewhere. A number of family members work in medicine -- where long hours and screwy work schedules are the norm. One would think that in areas where judgement affects lives that there would be serious attention to work schedules that would maximize their ability to perform. But the policy appears to be the reverse -- scheduling their work in ways that seem designed to minimize their effectiveness. So IT is not the only place where there is a curious acceptance of diminished outcomes for reasons under managements' control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a broader lesson to be drawn from this -- the ability of the staff to provide the correct results depends not only on their having the necessary tools and skills but being able to apply them effectively .
What the FAA found in the latest Buffalo crash -- that the crew were so fatigued that their judgement was impaired applies elsewhere .
A number of family members work in medicine -- where long hours and screwy work schedules are the norm .
One would think that in areas where judgement affects lives that there would be serious attention to work schedules that would maximize their ability to perform .
But the policy appears to be the reverse -- scheduling their work in ways that seem designed to minimize their effectiveness .
So IT is not the only place where there is a curious acceptance of diminished outcomes for reasons under managements ' control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a broader lesson to be drawn from this -- the ability of the staff to provide the correct results depends not only on their having the necessary tools and skills but being able to apply them effectively.
What the FAA found in the latest Buffalo crash -- that the crew were so fatigued that their judgement was impaired applies elsewhere.
A number of family members work in medicine -- where long hours and screwy work schedules are the norm.
One would think that in areas where judgement affects lives that there would be serious attention to work schedules that would maximize their ability to perform.
But the policy appears to be the reverse -- scheduling their work in ways that seem designed to minimize their effectiveness.
So IT is not the only place where there is a curious acceptance of diminished outcomes for reasons under managements' control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321280</id>
	<title>Bye, bye Miss American Pie ...</title>
	<author>Netherlorn</author>
	<datestamp>1267435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(see under Sperry Attitude Gyro and under-trained pilot).</htmltext>
<tokenext>( see under Sperry Attitude Gyro and under-trained pilot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(see under Sperry Attitude Gyro and under-trained pilot).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31352400</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what was painful?</p><p>what is the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what was painful ? what is the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what was painful?what is the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31341814</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267649760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;99\% of the time, human error is to blame</p><p>Human error is a big deal, but it is not 99\%.</p><p>I think like 80\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; 99 \ % of the time , human error is to blameHuman error is a big deal , but it is not 99 \ % .I think like 80 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;99\% of the time, human error is to blameHuman error is a big deal, but it is not 99\%.I think like 80\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319140</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267470360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hard stuff not obvious, people need training.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard stuff not obvious , people need training .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard stuff not obvious, people need training.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326888</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boring, perhaps.</p><p>Valuable and necessary?  Of course!</p><p>So.. read it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring , perhaps.Valuable and necessary ?
Of course ! So.. read it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boring, perhaps.Valuable and necessary?
Of course!So.. read it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329656</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those crashes are explained simply because the problem at hand is out of context.  Driving is habit... you train yourself to react.  Reacting to a stuck accelerator, or similar situation, is not something you are trained to react to - so you have to think, and analyze the situation, while in panic mode.  It may take you a vital second or two to realize that your car is misbehaving, and another second to decide what to do about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those crashes are explained simply because the problem at hand is out of context .
Driving is habit... you train yourself to react .
Reacting to a stuck accelerator , or similar situation , is not something you are trained to react to - so you have to think , and analyze the situation , while in panic mode .
It may take you a vital second or two to realize that your car is misbehaving , and another second to decide what to do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those crashes are explained simply because the problem at hand is out of context.
Driving is habit... you train yourself to react.
Reacting to a stuck accelerator, or similar situation, is not something you are trained to react to - so you have to think, and analyze the situation, while in panic mode.
It may take you a vital second or two to realize that your car is misbehaving, and another second to decide what to do about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321252</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I avoided killing someone because my car at that time did *not* have antilock brakes.  The driver pulled out in front of me far too late, and stalled across the middle of both lanes with no shoulder. I was able to throw my car into a skid by locking the brakes down hard. The momentum of my back-end carried it around, and helped me to pull the car over the right by about two feet.  This let me hit her back door instead of front at about 40mph. With or without ABS there was no way I was going to stop in time -- but not having ABS bought me that little bit of extra distance from the sideways motion of the skid , which let me aim my car somewhere other than directly at her.
<p>
Intellectually I know that ABS is a Good Thing, but it took me years after that incident to get a car that had them. (And so far, they've not come in handy... but that's more a matter of paying attention to the road and people, and knowing when the gas pedal is a better solution than the brakes.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I avoided killing someone because my car at that time did * not * have antilock brakes .
The driver pulled out in front of me far too late , and stalled across the middle of both lanes with no shoulder .
I was able to throw my car into a skid by locking the brakes down hard .
The momentum of my back-end carried it around , and helped me to pull the car over the right by about two feet .
This let me hit her back door instead of front at about 40mph .
With or without ABS there was no way I was going to stop in time -- but not having ABS bought me that little bit of extra distance from the sideways motion of the skid , which let me aim my car somewhere other than directly at her .
Intellectually I know that ABS is a Good Thing , but it took me years after that incident to get a car that had them .
( And so far , they 've not come in handy... but that 's more a matter of paying attention to the road and people , and knowing when the gas pedal is a better solution than the brakes .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I avoided killing someone because my car at that time did *not* have antilock brakes.
The driver pulled out in front of me far too late, and stalled across the middle of both lanes with no shoulder.
I was able to throw my car into a skid by locking the brakes down hard.
The momentum of my back-end carried it around, and helped me to pull the car over the right by about two feet.
This let me hit her back door instead of front at about 40mph.
With or without ABS there was no way I was going to stop in time -- but not having ABS bought me that little bit of extra distance from the sideways motion of the skid , which let me aim my car somewhere other than directly at her.
Intellectually I know that ABS is a Good Thing, but it took me years after that incident to get a car that had them.
(And so far, they've not come in handy... but that's more a matter of paying attention to the road and people, and knowing when the gas pedal is a better solution than the brakes.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319676</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267472340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been a long time, but, what I remember is that the pumping made it feel like trying to stop with brakes pushed only halfway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a long time , but , what I remember is that the pumping made it feel like trying to stop with brakes pushed only halfway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a long time, but, what I remember is that the pumping made it feel like trying to stop with brakes pushed only halfway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319902</id>
	<title>UI Design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is quite involved and requires careful thought. Training and procedures are important, but the best UIs should make the next step(s) in a task obvious. A symptom of an overly complex, poorly thought out UI is the high level of training and checklists needed to identify the next step(s) or locate required data. Using the flight deck model, older airplanes needed a large amount of training (and a third crew member) because all of the instrumentation and controls were just mounted on a few panels, with no guidance as to which dials and knobs would require special attention under various different flight conditions. The modern flight deck makes use of flexible displays that remain quiet (dark) until they demand attention. Then, they are presented in a manner which suits the particular task at hand. Like an automated checklist.
</p><p>If thought out carefully, a good UI can be quite intuitive to use, with little or no training. Apple is particularly good at creating such intuitive interfaces. I've created a few apps that were deployed to the shop floor with no training required whatsoever (other than the URL for the top page). One in particular was developed as a proof of concept demo and leaked to the shop. It was intended to demonstrate one possible approach to replacing a crappy command line interface. But when the factory people saw it (it was implemented using production data) and just started using it, management just made it the standard tool. I was never approached (until much later, for process documentation reasons) to write a users manual, or any instructions whatsoever, for its use. Subsequent additions of functions were also accomplished with no training requirements as well. If a new feature was added, it appeared as a selectable option (sometimes with an animated "New" flag) in the appropriate location for the process being performed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is quite involved and requires careful thought .
Training and procedures are important , but the best UIs should make the next step ( s ) in a task obvious .
A symptom of an overly complex , poorly thought out UI is the high level of training and checklists needed to identify the next step ( s ) or locate required data .
Using the flight deck model , older airplanes needed a large amount of training ( and a third crew member ) because all of the instrumentation and controls were just mounted on a few panels , with no guidance as to which dials and knobs would require special attention under various different flight conditions .
The modern flight deck makes use of flexible displays that remain quiet ( dark ) until they demand attention .
Then , they are presented in a manner which suits the particular task at hand .
Like an automated checklist .
If thought out carefully , a good UI can be quite intuitive to use , with little or no training .
Apple is particularly good at creating such intuitive interfaces .
I 've created a few apps that were deployed to the shop floor with no training required whatsoever ( other than the URL for the top page ) .
One in particular was developed as a proof of concept demo and leaked to the shop .
It was intended to demonstrate one possible approach to replacing a crappy command line interface .
But when the factory people saw it ( it was implemented using production data ) and just started using it , management just made it the standard tool .
I was never approached ( until much later , for process documentation reasons ) to write a users manual , or any instructions whatsoever , for its use .
Subsequent additions of functions were also accomplished with no training requirements as well .
If a new feature was added , it appeared as a selectable option ( sometimes with an animated " New " flag ) in the appropriate location for the process being performed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is quite involved and requires careful thought.
Training and procedures are important, but the best UIs should make the next step(s) in a task obvious.
A symptom of an overly complex, poorly thought out UI is the high level of training and checklists needed to identify the next step(s) or locate required data.
Using the flight deck model, older airplanes needed a large amount of training (and a third crew member) because all of the instrumentation and controls were just mounted on a few panels, with no guidance as to which dials and knobs would require special attention under various different flight conditions.
The modern flight deck makes use of flexible displays that remain quiet (dark) until they demand attention.
Then, they are presented in a manner which suits the particular task at hand.
Like an automated checklist.
If thought out carefully, a good UI can be quite intuitive to use, with little or no training.
Apple is particularly good at creating such intuitive interfaces.
I've created a few apps that were deployed to the shop floor with no training required whatsoever (other than the URL for the top page).
One in particular was developed as a proof of concept demo and leaked to the shop.
It was intended to demonstrate one possible approach to replacing a crappy command line interface.
But when the factory people saw it (it was implemented using production data) and just started using it, management just made it the standard tool.
I was never approached (until much later, for process documentation reasons) to write a users manual, or any instructions whatsoever, for its use.
Subsequent additions of functions were also accomplished with no training requirements as well.
If a new feature was added, it appeared as a selectable option (sometimes with an animated "New" flag) in the appropriate location for the process being performed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319770</id>
	<title>In Other Words.....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1267472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....Bill-yuns and bill-yuns of itty-bitty buttons, all alike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....Bill-yuns and bill-yuns of itty-bitty buttons , all alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....Bill-yuns and bill-yuns of itty-bitty buttons, all alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</id>
	<title>Yes.  Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Here's an example of just that - the new <a href="http://www.archdaily.com/29186/moesk-control-center-arch-group-abtb/" title="archdaily.com">Moesk control center</a> [archdaily.com] for Moscow's electric network.
</p><p>Take a look at the <a href="http://www.archdaily.com/29186/moesk-control-center-arch-group-abtb/" title="archdaily.com">pictures</a> [archdaily.com].  This looks like a movie set for a Bond movie.  The architects got completely out of control here.
</p><p>
Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management.  It looks like it retracts into the ceiling. The lower operator's platform has steeply slanted sides, no railings, and chairs with wheels. The huge room only has eight operator positions.
</p><p>
I'll bet that, within a year or two, the people who actually have to run the grid set up a "field control center" with about twenty people with PCs, cork boards on the walls, 2-way radios for talking to field crews, a conference/map table, and some printers.  The real work will be done there.  A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an example of just that - the new Moesk control center [ archdaily.com ] for Moscow 's electric network .
Take a look at the pictures [ archdaily.com ] .
This looks like a movie set for a Bond movie .
The architects got completely out of control here .
Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management .
It looks like it retracts into the ceiling .
The lower operator 's platform has steeply slanted sides , no railings , and chairs with wheels .
The huge room only has eight operator positions .
I 'll bet that , within a year or two , the people who actually have to run the grid set up a " field control center " with about twenty people with PCs , cork boards on the walls , 2-way radios for talking to field crews , a conference/map table , and some printers .
The real work will be done there .
A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Here's an example of just that - the new Moesk control center [archdaily.com] for Moscow's electric network.
Take a look at the pictures [archdaily.com].
This looks like a movie set for a Bond movie.
The architects got completely out of control here.
Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management.
It looks like it retracts into the ceiling.
The lower operator's platform has steeply slanted sides, no railings, and chairs with wheels.
The huge room only has eight operator positions.
I'll bet that, within a year or two, the people who actually have to run the grid set up a "field control center" with about twenty people with PCs, cork boards on the walls, 2-way radios for talking to field crews, a conference/map table, and some printers.
The real work will be done there.
A few people will sit in the big room and answer questions for management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319582</id>
	<title>did i miss something?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or does the summary have nothing to do with the review?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or does the summary have nothing to do with the review ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or does the summary have nothing to do with the review?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320930</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1267434000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well pumping the brakes was never the best way to stop a car. The best way to stop a car was to apply almost enough bake pressure to skid but not quite enough to skid. Pumping is sort of a lowest common demonator way to teach people how not to skid out of control. Not the best way but often the best that people can do and on ice without studded tires or chains it is about the best anyone can do at all.<br>I actually got very good at this. I got so good that I had issues taking my MSF course. In the course they wanted me to lock the rear wheel  to show that it took longer skidding than it did when not skidding. I just couldn't make myself do it. But I sure could stop fast.<br>I doubt that the ABS made the accident any worse than a none ABS car would have.<br>The problem isn't that the tech can cause problems the problem is that people can become too dependent on the the tech so they can not solve the problem.<br>Using the ABS as an example.  If a wheel sensor fails and you are without ABS you should not have a terrible issue because no the car is no harder to stop than a car without ABS. The problem is that not many people know how to stop a non ABS car well.<br>Training now must cover now to use the automated systems as well as how to deal with the manual backup systems. Of course you will use the manual systems very rarely so your experience base will be very low.<br>The end result is that a none critical system can now cause a critical problem unless you greatly increase training.<br>The other issue comes from manpower reduction.<br>Not really an issue when talking about a car but I big problem when you are talking about systems like Airliners.<br>An old pro airliner from the 1940s of 50s might have a flight crew of a pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, navigator, and radio operator. A modern airliner now flies with a crew of two!<br>When things go wrong they can get real busy real fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well pumping the brakes was never the best way to stop a car .
The best way to stop a car was to apply almost enough bake pressure to skid but not quite enough to skid .
Pumping is sort of a lowest common demonator way to teach people how not to skid out of control .
Not the best way but often the best that people can do and on ice without studded tires or chains it is about the best anyone can do at all.I actually got very good at this .
I got so good that I had issues taking my MSF course .
In the course they wanted me to lock the rear wheel to show that it took longer skidding than it did when not skidding .
I just could n't make myself do it .
But I sure could stop fast.I doubt that the ABS made the accident any worse than a none ABS car would have.The problem is n't that the tech can cause problems the problem is that people can become too dependent on the the tech so they can not solve the problem.Using the ABS as an example .
If a wheel sensor fails and you are without ABS you should not have a terrible issue because no the car is no harder to stop than a car without ABS .
The problem is that not many people know how to stop a non ABS car well.Training now must cover now to use the automated systems as well as how to deal with the manual backup systems .
Of course you will use the manual systems very rarely so your experience base will be very low.The end result is that a none critical system can now cause a critical problem unless you greatly increase training.The other issue comes from manpower reduction.Not really an issue when talking about a car but I big problem when you are talking about systems like Airliners.An old pro airliner from the 1940s of 50s might have a flight crew of a pilot , co-pilot , flight engineer , navigator , and radio operator .
A modern airliner now flies with a crew of two ! When things go wrong they can get real busy real fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well pumping the brakes was never the best way to stop a car.
The best way to stop a car was to apply almost enough bake pressure to skid but not quite enough to skid.
Pumping is sort of a lowest common demonator way to teach people how not to skid out of control.
Not the best way but often the best that people can do and on ice without studded tires or chains it is about the best anyone can do at all.I actually got very good at this.
I got so good that I had issues taking my MSF course.
In the course they wanted me to lock the rear wheel  to show that it took longer skidding than it did when not skidding.
I just couldn't make myself do it.
But I sure could stop fast.I doubt that the ABS made the accident any worse than a none ABS car would have.The problem isn't that the tech can cause problems the problem is that people can become too dependent on the the tech so they can not solve the problem.Using the ABS as an example.
If a wheel sensor fails and you are without ABS you should not have a terrible issue because no the car is no harder to stop than a car without ABS.
The problem is that not many people know how to stop a non ABS car well.Training now must cover now to use the automated systems as well as how to deal with the manual backup systems.
Of course you will use the manual systems very rarely so your experience base will be very low.The end result is that a none critical system can now cause a critical problem unless you greatly increase training.The other issue comes from manpower reduction.Not really an issue when talking about a car but I big problem when you are talking about systems like Airliners.An old pro airliner from the 1940s of 50s might have a flight crew of a pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, navigator, and radio operator.
A modern airliner now flies with a crew of two!When things go wrong they can get real busy real fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932</id>
	<title>Maybe this explains Toyota's problems</title>
	<author>Relayman</author>
	<datestamp>1267469340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In today's world, technically advanced cars present a unique paradox. Technically advanced vehicles, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are less accidents. But without proper training for their drivers, they could be less safe than cars with less available safety. NHTSA found that without proper training for the drivers who drive them, technically advanced cars don't advance safety at all. The reason is that technically advanced vehicles present challenges that under-prepared drivers might not be equipped to handle."<br> <br>This could explain some of the Toyota crashes. The drivers don't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it's stuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In today 's world , technically advanced cars present a unique paradox .
Technically advanced vehicles , in theory , have more available safety , and the outcome should be that there are less accidents .
But without proper training for their drivers , they could be less safe than cars with less available safety .
NHTSA found that without proper training for the drivers who drive them , technically advanced cars do n't advance safety at all .
The reason is that technically advanced vehicles present challenges that under-prepared drivers might not be equipped to handle .
" This could explain some of the Toyota crashes .
The drivers do n't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it 's stuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In today's world, technically advanced cars present a unique paradox.
Technically advanced vehicles, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are less accidents.
But without proper training for their drivers, they could be less safe than cars with less available safety.
NHTSA found that without proper training for the drivers who drive them, technically advanced cars don't advance safety at all.
The reason is that technically advanced vehicles present challenges that under-prepared drivers might not be equipped to handle.
" This could explain some of the Toyota crashes.
The drivers don't understand what they need to do to slow down and stop the car when the accelerator acts like it's stuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322290</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Here's a bad example.</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1267438980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management. It looks like it retracts into the ceiling.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey!  The Cone of Silence was a required deliverable insisted on by management, okay?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management .
It looks like it retracts into the ceiling.Hey !
The Cone of Silence was a required deliverable insisted on by management , okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notice the suspended transparent bubble for top management.
It looks like it retracts into the ceiling.Hey!
The Cone of Silence was a required deliverable insisted on by management, okay?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31334890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31325066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31341814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31352400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31381592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31327028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1435219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31331202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31352400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31326966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31331202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31381592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31334890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31318842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31329834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31325066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31322290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31327028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31341814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1435219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31321252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31320930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1435219.31319676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
