<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_1255202</id>
	<title>The State of the Internet Operating System</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269955440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>macslocum writes <i>"Tim O'Reilly: 'I've been talking for years about "<a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/state-of-internet-operating-system.html">the internet operating system</a>," but I realized I've never written an extended post to define what I think it is, where it is going, and the choices we face. This is that missing post. Here you will see the underlying beliefs about the future that are guiding my publishing program as well as the rationale behind conferences I organize.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>macslocum writes " Tim O'Reilly : 'I 've been talking for years about " the internet operating system , " but I realized I 've never written an extended post to define what I think it is , where it is going , and the choices we face .
This is that missing post .
Here you will see the underlying beliefs about the future that are guiding my publishing program as well as the rationale behind conferences I organize .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>macslocum writes "Tim O'Reilly: 'I've been talking for years about "the internet operating system," but I realized I've never written an extended post to define what I think it is, where it is going, and the choices we face.
This is that missing post.
Here you will see the underlying beliefs about the future that are guiding my publishing program as well as the rationale behind conferences I organize.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669746</id>
	<title>Re:Breathe deep then read this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's where old-school software download sites shine again. They are basically app stores for free/shareware apps; and they've been around for decades.</p><p>With the advent of Google-level search engines, they became a lot less relevant. Now that Google &amp; co are spammed to death, they regain part of their old glory.</p><p>It's not all black and white though. App-stores suffer from fraudulent entries that try to game the system, too. I've followed the reports of various Apple App Store developers for a while and even though Apple is tough, a lot of dubious crap falls through the cracks. On the other hand, Google tries to combat sites that try to game their ranking algorithm (and fails miserably).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's where old-school software download sites shine again .
They are basically app stores for free/shareware apps ; and they 've been around for decades.With the advent of Google-level search engines , they became a lot less relevant .
Now that Google &amp; co are spammed to death , they regain part of their old glory.It 's not all black and white though .
App-stores suffer from fraudulent entries that try to game the system , too .
I 've followed the reports of various Apple App Store developers for a while and even though Apple is tough , a lot of dubious crap falls through the cracks .
On the other hand , Google tries to combat sites that try to game their ranking algorithm ( and fails miserably ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's where old-school software download sites shine again.
They are basically app stores for free/shareware apps; and they've been around for decades.With the advent of Google-level search engines, they became a lot less relevant.
Now that Google &amp; co are spammed to death, they regain part of their old glory.It's not all black and white though.
App-stores suffer from fraudulent entries that try to game the system, too.
I've followed the reports of various Apple App Store developers for a while and even though Apple is tough, a lot of dubious crap falls through the cracks.
On the other hand, Google tries to combat sites that try to game their ranking algorithm (and fails miserably).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669722</id>
	<title>Quoting the article</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1269960540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"always-on future", frequent use of the word "massive", "the internet operating system is an information operating system" etc. etc. etc.

Besides the article a big colored blotch blares something about some "web2.0 expo" - whatever that may be.

Brief: are there people actually listening to / reading this guy and his baked air ? What a bunch of meaningless cr*p !</htmltext>
<tokenext>" always-on future " , frequent use of the word " massive " , " the internet operating system is an information operating system " etc .
etc. etc .
Besides the article a big colored blotch blares something about some " web2.0 expo " - whatever that may be .
Brief : are there people actually listening to / reading this guy and his baked air ?
What a bunch of meaningless cr * p !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"always-on future", frequent use of the word "massive", "the internet operating system is an information operating system" etc.
etc. etc.
Besides the article a big colored blotch blares something about some "web2.0 expo" - whatever that may be.
Brief: are there people actually listening to / reading this guy and his baked air ?
What a bunch of meaningless cr*p !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669872</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because having someone else do the crunching decentralizes the storage of the data you are using?  With it decentralized you no longer have to upgrade your hard drive capacity, you can have a power outage and the data will still be procesed and multiple people can process it at the same time without interference?<br>
<br>
This is assuming a perfect system, the server has to upgrade appropriately and have proper data, power and network backups to prevent the same issues but how often does slashdot go down these days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because having someone else do the crunching decentralizes the storage of the data you are using ?
With it decentralized you no longer have to upgrade your hard drive capacity , you can have a power outage and the data will still be procesed and multiple people can process it at the same time without interference ?
This is assuming a perfect system , the server has to upgrade appropriately and have proper data , power and network backups to prevent the same issues but how often does slashdot go down these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because having someone else do the crunching decentralizes the storage of the data you are using?
With it decentralized you no longer have to upgrade your hard drive capacity, you can have a power outage and the data will still be procesed and multiple people can process it at the same time without interference?
This is assuming a perfect system, the server has to upgrade appropriately and have proper data, power and network backups to prevent the same issues but how often does slashdot go down these days?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670026</id>
	<title>Seriously? Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..Along came Microsoft with an offer that was difficult to refuse: We'll manage the drivers; all application developers have to do is write software that uses the Win32 APIs, and all of the complexity will be abstracted away. "</p><p>In which universe did Microsoft first come up with the concept of driver management and a standardized API?</p><p>Sounds more like he's summarizing the most popular services of the World Wide Web today, and calling all that the Information Operating System. We've heard allegations of the WWW being an OS before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ..Along came Microsoft with an offer that was difficult to refuse : We 'll manage the drivers ; all application developers have to do is write software that uses the Win32 APIs , and all of the complexity will be abstracted away .
" In which universe did Microsoft first come up with the concept of driver management and a standardized API ? Sounds more like he 's summarizing the most popular services of the World Wide Web today , and calling all that the Information Operating System .
We 've heard allegations of the WWW being an OS before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..Along came Microsoft with an offer that was difficult to refuse: We'll manage the drivers; all application developers have to do is write software that uses the Win32 APIs, and all of the complexity will be abstracted away.
"In which universe did Microsoft first come up with the concept of driver management and a standardized API?Sounds more like he's summarizing the most popular services of the World Wide Web today, and calling all that the Information Operating System.
We've heard allegations of the WWW being an OS before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670472</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1269963480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I weep for OpenMOSIX. I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster <em>almost without our involvement</em> and just accelerate each others' tasks. A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream.</p></div><p>What happened to OpenMOSIX, anyway? I used it very successfully to turn groups of workstations into build servers; they all ran OpenMOSIX, and then make -j8 on <i>any</i> of the workstations would farm out the build to <i>all</i> the workstations. And it all Just Worked, and there was bugger all maintenance involved, etc. I was really looking forward to it getting mainlined into the kernel and then it just all kind of vanished.

</p><p>There's no indication of what happened on the mailing list --- it just stops. There's a new project called <a href="http://linuxpmi.org/trac/" title="linuxpmi.org">LinuxPMI</a> [linuxpmi.org] that claims to be a continuation but there's no mailing list traffic...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I weep for OpenMOSIX .
I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we 'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster almost without our involvement and just accelerate each others ' tasks .
A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream.What happened to OpenMOSIX , anyway ?
I used it very successfully to turn groups of workstations into build servers ; they all ran OpenMOSIX , and then make -j8 on any of the workstations would farm out the build to all the workstations .
And it all Just Worked , and there was bugger all maintenance involved , etc .
I was really looking forward to it getting mainlined into the kernel and then it just all kind of vanished .
There 's no indication of what happened on the mailing list --- it just stops .
There 's a new project called LinuxPMI [ linuxpmi.org ] that claims to be a continuation but there 's no mailing list traffic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I weep for OpenMOSIX.
I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster almost without our involvement and just accelerate each others' tasks.
A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream.What happened to OpenMOSIX, anyway?
I used it very successfully to turn groups of workstations into build servers; they all ran OpenMOSIX, and then make -j8 on any of the workstations would farm out the build to all the workstations.
And it all Just Worked, and there was bugger all maintenance involved, etc.
I was really looking forward to it getting mainlined into the kernel and then it just all kind of vanished.
There's no indication of what happened on the mailing list --- it just stops.
There's a new project called LinuxPMI [linuxpmi.org] that claims to be a continuation but there's no mailing list traffic...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673214</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1269971460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every time there was a glitch in the network; every student, professor, and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they couldn't so much as type a Word document.</p></div><p>Meh. That's true for my workplace despite our thick clients. Network folders, Internet connection, Active Directory... If anything goes down the office just sort of grinds to a halt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time there was a glitch in the network ; every student , professor , and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they could n't so much as type a Word document.Meh .
That 's true for my workplace despite our thick clients .
Network folders , Internet connection , Active Directory... If anything goes down the office just sort of grinds to a halt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time there was a glitch in the network; every student, professor, and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they couldn't so much as type a Word document.Meh.
That's true for my workplace despite our thick clients.
Network folders, Internet connection, Active Directory... If anything goes down the office just sort of grinds to a halt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596</id>
	<title>P or NP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems the hardest and most time-consuming problem with Internet operating systems is figuring out how to work offline.</p><p>And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work online in the first place".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems the hardest and most time-consuming problem with Internet operating systems is figuring out how to work offline.And the easiest solution , which seems to escape almost everybody , is " do n't work online in the first place " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems the hardest and most time-consuming problem with Internet operating systems is figuring out how to work offline.And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work online in the first place".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670030</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1269962040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your implementation didn't handle faults well, therefore we should throw out the idea?</p><p>There are certainly criticism to be made for the centralized model, but your anecdote isn't one of them.  If the product you bought and/or stuff you built wasn't fault tolerant then you bought and/or built the wrong solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your implementation did n't handle faults well , therefore we should throw out the idea ? There are certainly criticism to be made for the centralized model , but your anecdote is n't one of them .
If the product you bought and/or stuff you built was n't fault tolerant then you bought and/or built the wrong solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your implementation didn't handle faults well, therefore we should throw out the idea?There are certainly criticism to be made for the centralized model, but your anecdote isn't one of them.
If the product you bought and/or stuff you built wasn't fault tolerant then you bought and/or built the wrong solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670244</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1269962700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... but how often does slashdot go down these days?</i></p><p>Actually, that's a good way to phrase it.  That is, it may be true that slashdot itself is almost always up and running.  But from my viewpoint, out here on an internet "leaf" node, slashdot quite often seems to be "down".  It's fairly common that when I do a refresh, it can take a minute or more to complete.  Sometimes when the "Done" appears at the bottom left of the window, the window is mostly blank, and it takes another refresh to get the summaries back on the screen.</p><p>The basic problem with the cloud-computing model is the same as with the thin-client+server model and the terminal-cluster+mainframe model:  Your computing is done on one or more remote machines, over which you have no control, and even when that's working, the results you see on your screen depends on a comm network.  That network might work well when first installed with short links.  But if it's successful, it'll quickly become overloaded and upgraded at team of managers and workers who mostly don't have a clue about how the technical details of the system.</p><p>The bean counters can explain all they like about how much cheaper centrally-controlled computing systems are.  But if you actually want to get your work done, you'll once again discover that you need a computer that can do the work locally.  If you don't have control over the machine, it won't do your work the way you want it done, and the people who do control it won't have a strong motive to help you with problems that they don't see or understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but how often does slashdot go down these days ? Actually , that 's a good way to phrase it .
That is , it may be true that slashdot itself is almost always up and running .
But from my viewpoint , out here on an internet " leaf " node , slashdot quite often seems to be " down " .
It 's fairly common that when I do a refresh , it can take a minute or more to complete .
Sometimes when the " Done " appears at the bottom left of the window , the window is mostly blank , and it takes another refresh to get the summaries back on the screen.The basic problem with the cloud-computing model is the same as with the thin-client + server model and the terminal-cluster + mainframe model : Your computing is done on one or more remote machines , over which you have no control , and even when that 's working , the results you see on your screen depends on a comm network .
That network might work well when first installed with short links .
But if it 's successful , it 'll quickly become overloaded and upgraded at team of managers and workers who mostly do n't have a clue about how the technical details of the system.The bean counters can explain all they like about how much cheaper centrally-controlled computing systems are .
But if you actually want to get your work done , you 'll once again discover that you need a computer that can do the work locally .
If you do n't have control over the machine , it wo n't do your work the way you want it done , and the people who do control it wo n't have a strong motive to help you with problems that they do n't see or understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but how often does slashdot go down these days?Actually, that's a good way to phrase it.
That is, it may be true that slashdot itself is almost always up and running.
But from my viewpoint, out here on an internet "leaf" node, slashdot quite often seems to be "down".
It's fairly common that when I do a refresh, it can take a minute or more to complete.
Sometimes when the "Done" appears at the bottom left of the window, the window is mostly blank, and it takes another refresh to get the summaries back on the screen.The basic problem with the cloud-computing model is the same as with the thin-client+server model and the terminal-cluster+mainframe model:  Your computing is done on one or more remote machines, over which you have no control, and even when that's working, the results you see on your screen depends on a comm network.
That network might work well when first installed with short links.
But if it's successful, it'll quickly become overloaded and upgraded at team of managers and workers who mostly don't have a clue about how the technical details of the system.The bean counters can explain all they like about how much cheaper centrally-controlled computing systems are.
But if you actually want to get your work done, you'll once again discover that you need a computer that can do the work locally.
If you don't have control over the machine, it won't do your work the way you want it done, and the people who do control it won't have a strong motive to help you with problems that they don't see or understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269960720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's also dumb. Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine, why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal? Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails.</p></div><p>I weep for OpenMOSIX. I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster <em>almost without our involvement</em> and just accelerate each others' tasks. A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also dumb .
Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine , why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal ?
Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails.I weep for OpenMOSIX .
I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we 'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster almost without our involvement and just accelerate each others ' tasks .
A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also dumb.
Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine, why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal?
Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails.I weep for OpenMOSIX.
I was hoping that the project would continue and ere long we'd be motivated to buy all one architecture in our house simply because all the machines would form a cluster almost without our involvement and just accelerate each others' tasks.
A terminal cluster where the terminals also make the entire system faster is kind of an ideal dream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31674034</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1269974220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>yeah! neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject!</p></div><p>Oh pipe down and eat your rootmarm!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah !
neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject ! Oh pipe down and eat your rootmarm !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah!
neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject!Oh pipe down and eat your rootmarm!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</id>
	<title>Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole "Internet OS" thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days. It seems like every ten years or so, everyone is talking about thin clients in every office, with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere (now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet). Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead. But in every actual deployment I've seen, it only causes hassles, additional expense, and headaches.</p><p>Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university. We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server. Even though this was all done on a local network (much more reliable in those days than the internet), it was still a complete disaster. Every time there was a glitch in the network; every student, professor, and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they couldn't so much as type a Word document. Now, with little network downtime, you would think this wouldn't be so much of a problem--but when you're talking about thousands of people who live and die by the written word, and who are often working on class deadlines, you can imagine that even 30 minutes of downtime was a nightmare. I was skeptical of this system from the get-go, but got overruled by some "visionaries" who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor. Of course, long story short, we ended up scrapping the system after a year and going back to the old system (with a significant cost to the state and university for our folly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole " Internet OS " thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days .
It seems like every ten years or so , everyone is talking about thin clients in every office , with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere ( now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet ) .
Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead .
But in every actual deployment I 've seen , it only causes hassles , additional expense , and headaches.Back in the 90 's we tried this at my old university .
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server .
Even though this was all done on a local network ( much more reliable in those days than the internet ) , it was still a complete disaster .
Every time there was a glitch in the network ; every student , professor , and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they could n't so much as type a Word document .
Now , with little network downtime , you would think this would n't be so much of a problem--but when you 're talking about thousands of people who live and die by the written word , and who are often working on class deadlines , you can imagine that even 30 minutes of downtime was a nightmare .
I was skeptical of this system from the get-go , but got overruled by some " visionaries " who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor .
Of course , long story short , we ended up scrapping the system after a year and going back to the old system ( with a significant cost to the state and university for our folly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole "Internet OS" thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days.
It seems like every ten years or so, everyone is talking about thin clients in every office, with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere (now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet).
Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead.
But in every actual deployment I've seen, it only causes hassles, additional expense, and headaches.Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university.
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server.
Even though this was all done on a local network (much more reliable in those days than the internet), it was still a complete disaster.
Every time there was a glitch in the network; every student, professor, and staff member at the university lost the ability to do anything on their computer--they couldn't so much as type a Word document.
Now, with little network downtime, you would think this wouldn't be so much of a problem--but when you're talking about thousands of people who live and die by the written word, and who are often working on class deadlines, you can imagine that even 30 minutes of downtime was a nightmare.
I was skeptical of this system from the get-go, but got overruled by some "visionaries" who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor.
Of course, long story short, we ended up scrapping the system after a year and going back to the old system (with a significant cost to the state and university for our folly).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672898</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269970560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was skeptical of this system from the get-go, but got overruled by some "visionaries" who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor.</p></div><p>Or alternately, those "visionaries" were expecting to profit personally from the thin client manufacturer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was skeptical of this system from the get-go , but got overruled by some " visionaries " who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor.Or alternately , those " visionaries " were expecting to profit personally from the thin client manufacturer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was skeptical of this system from the get-go, but got overruled by some "visionaries" who had bought into the whole thin client argument with a religious fervor.Or alternately, those "visionaries" were expecting to profit personally from the thin client manufacturer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673974</id>
	<title>Mobile code, redundant data</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1269974040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better version of the future is to secure the PC using sandboxing and capabilities to limit the side effects of applications. This then allows you to download and run apps on your PC, without the need to trust them. You could then have redundant copies of your stuff spread across your various devices. Your stuff includes photos, videos, documents, and the code to manipulate them.</p><p>The focus on services is a result of the distortions caused by the lack of a good security model on the PC. Once that gets fixed, a lot of thing work better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better version of the future is to secure the PC using sandboxing and capabilities to limit the side effects of applications .
This then allows you to download and run apps on your PC , without the need to trust them .
You could then have redundant copies of your stuff spread across your various devices .
Your stuff includes photos , videos , documents , and the code to manipulate them.The focus on services is a result of the distortions caused by the lack of a good security model on the PC .
Once that gets fixed , a lot of thing work better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better version of the future is to secure the PC using sandboxing and capabilities to limit the side effects of applications.
This then allows you to download and run apps on your PC, without the need to trust them.
You could then have redundant copies of your stuff spread across your various devices.
Your stuff includes photos, videos, documents, and the code to manipulate them.The focus on services is a result of the distortions caused by the lack of a good security model on the PC.
Once that gets fixed, a lot of thing work better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31675680</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1269980760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university. We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server.</p></div><p>That's the point of local storage in HTML 5.  Applications that make good use of it can run without a network connection, or when the server suffers a 30-minute "glitch."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 90 's we tried this at my old university .
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server.That 's the point of local storage in HTML 5 .
Applications that make good use of it can run without a network connection , or when the server suffers a 30-minute " glitch .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university.
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server.That's the point of local storage in HTML 5.
Applications that make good use of it can run without a network connection, or when the server suffers a 30-minute "glitch.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669584</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb peeple and dumb terminalz dont mix either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb peeple and dumb terminalz dont mix either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb peeple and dumb terminalz dont mix either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669980</id>
	<title>Internet OS</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1269961740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that would be IOS right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
<br> <br>
ps for non networking types IOS is Ciscos OS</htmltext>
<tokenext>that would be IOS right : - ) ps for non networking types IOS is Ciscos OS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would be IOS right :-)
 
ps for non networking types IOS is Ciscos OS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669770</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah! neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah !
neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah!
neither does article embiggen our knowledge on the subject!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670546</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>FyRE666</author>
	<datestamp>1269963720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy also seems to have a problem differentiating between an operating system and a network infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy also seems to have a problem differentiating between an operating system and a network infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy also seems to have a problem differentiating between an operating system and a network infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669560</id>
	<title>Breathe deep then read this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A combination of SEO (search engine optimization) tricks, product duplication, fake companies, and bogus product reviews have muddied the water for software. No wonder app stores have begun taking over--it's almost impossible to find good software on the Internet. It's hard to find anything beyond big names like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, because little sleazeball companies have taken over the space.</p><p>You see them all the time. If you're looking for any sort of utility on Google, you'll come across a ton of crappy and often useless (if not outright fraudulent) garbage that has risen to the top, thanks to what I like to call "active" SEO trickery. The normal SEO ideas used to improve search results are being actively modified on what seems like a day-by-day basis.</p><p>Try searching "free video converter." Say you want to convert an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi file to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4. Which one should you use? [Note: None of them are actually free.] When you start digging through the list, you'll find a number of anomalies. First of all, the cream doesn't rise to the top anymore. That's where the empty plastic bottles and flotsam are. The cream has dissolved, and you can't use Google to find it.</p><p>To find the cream, you have to go to a forum and ask around. Of course it's nearly impossible to find a subject that everyone agrees on. If you have enough followers, you can use Twitter or Facebook for crowd-sourcing, but you have to have a lot of tech savvy followers for this to work.</p><p>In the days when computer magazines ruled, these things were done by staffs within a rigid review framework. That's impractical nowadays. You'd be hard pressed to find any print computer magazine that will tell you which is the best video utility out there. And if they did, few of today's users would know to source from the magazine. The situation is grim.</p><p>Sourcing directly from Google is problematic. Sellers market crap by repacking it on numerous similar Websites, re-branding it so it competes with itself. Various SEO tricks help bring the product to the top of the search results. These are one or two person operations with sometimes slick packaging and products that seldom work as advertised. The companies protect themselves with onerous EULAs that say the product sucks, so it's all good and legal. A few offer bogus trial periods or shareware-like deals that are out and out frauds, with nearly all of the important features disabled. Often times the products just don't work at all.</p><p>People credit Apple's creation of the iTunes App Store as part of the company's control freak nature. That may be part of the its impetus, but we can't overlook the fact that the store manages to reign in the kind of crap we see in the online world where scammers dominate.</p><p>There are a number of reviewing initiatives that hope to compete with the App Store for mindshare. I suspect that they will eventually have some impact. For now, however, there are simply too many sub-categories and too much confusion. Which are the best font cataloging and organizing tools? What is the best software for moving a DVD recording to my laptop? What is the best software for converting an old XYwrite document to HTML? What software best converts hard CRs to soft CRs?</p><p>It's rare to find what you're looking for if there's any complexity involved. You get junk instead. Even when a trusted source like PCMag or a dedicated review site actually offers a listing of the particular utility you're seeking, it's a miracle if it shows up in the Google results. Why? Because these sites aren't doing active SEO on every single page of content they're publishing.</p><p>I've complained in the past about SEO and its impact on the Web. All I get is flak from SEO consultants. But that hasn't stopped me yet. My favorite search example is "best cell phone plan." Good luck with that one.</p><p>The app store of the future will have the 10 utilities that might work with star ratings telling readers what other users think. Within the app store structure, if</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A combination of SEO ( search engine optimization ) tricks , product duplication , fake companies , and bogus product reviews have muddied the water for software .
No wonder app stores have begun taking over--it 's almost impossible to find good software on the Internet .
It 's hard to find anything beyond big names like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop , because little sleazeball companies have taken over the space.You see them all the time .
If you 're looking for any sort of utility on Google , you 'll come across a ton of crappy and often useless ( if not outright fraudulent ) garbage that has risen to the top , thanks to what I like to call " active " SEO trickery .
The normal SEO ideas used to improve search results are being actively modified on what seems like a day-by-day basis.Try searching " free video converter .
" Say you want to convert an .avi file to .mp4 .
Which one should you use ?
[ Note : None of them are actually free .
] When you start digging through the list , you 'll find a number of anomalies .
First of all , the cream does n't rise to the top anymore .
That 's where the empty plastic bottles and flotsam are .
The cream has dissolved , and you ca n't use Google to find it.To find the cream , you have to go to a forum and ask around .
Of course it 's nearly impossible to find a subject that everyone agrees on .
If you have enough followers , you can use Twitter or Facebook for crowd-sourcing , but you have to have a lot of tech savvy followers for this to work.In the days when computer magazines ruled , these things were done by staffs within a rigid review framework .
That 's impractical nowadays .
You 'd be hard pressed to find any print computer magazine that will tell you which is the best video utility out there .
And if they did , few of today 's users would know to source from the magazine .
The situation is grim.Sourcing directly from Google is problematic .
Sellers market crap by repacking it on numerous similar Websites , re-branding it so it competes with itself .
Various SEO tricks help bring the product to the top of the search results .
These are one or two person operations with sometimes slick packaging and products that seldom work as advertised .
The companies protect themselves with onerous EULAs that say the product sucks , so it 's all good and legal .
A few offer bogus trial periods or shareware-like deals that are out and out frauds , with nearly all of the important features disabled .
Often times the products just do n't work at all.People credit Apple 's creation of the iTunes App Store as part of the company 's control freak nature .
That may be part of the its impetus , but we ca n't overlook the fact that the store manages to reign in the kind of crap we see in the online world where scammers dominate.There are a number of reviewing initiatives that hope to compete with the App Store for mindshare .
I suspect that they will eventually have some impact .
For now , however , there are simply too many sub-categories and too much confusion .
Which are the best font cataloging and organizing tools ?
What is the best software for moving a DVD recording to my laptop ?
What is the best software for converting an old XYwrite document to HTML ?
What software best converts hard CRs to soft CRs ? It 's rare to find what you 're looking for if there 's any complexity involved .
You get junk instead .
Even when a trusted source like PCMag or a dedicated review site actually offers a listing of the particular utility you 're seeking , it 's a miracle if it shows up in the Google results .
Why ? Because these sites are n't doing active SEO on every single page of content they 're publishing.I 've complained in the past about SEO and its impact on the Web .
All I get is flak from SEO consultants .
But that has n't stopped me yet .
My favorite search example is " best cell phone plan .
" Good luck with that one.The app store of the future will have the 10 utilities that might work with star ratings telling readers what other users think .
Within the app store structure , if</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A combination of SEO (search engine optimization) tricks, product duplication, fake companies, and bogus product reviews have muddied the water for software.
No wonder app stores have begun taking over--it's almost impossible to find good software on the Internet.
It's hard to find anything beyond big names like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, because little sleazeball companies have taken over the space.You see them all the time.
If you're looking for any sort of utility on Google, you'll come across a ton of crappy and often useless (if not outright fraudulent) garbage that has risen to the top, thanks to what I like to call "active" SEO trickery.
The normal SEO ideas used to improve search results are being actively modified on what seems like a day-by-day basis.Try searching "free video converter.
" Say you want to convert an .avi file to .mp4.
Which one should you use?
[Note: None of them are actually free.
] When you start digging through the list, you'll find a number of anomalies.
First of all, the cream doesn't rise to the top anymore.
That's where the empty plastic bottles and flotsam are.
The cream has dissolved, and you can't use Google to find it.To find the cream, you have to go to a forum and ask around.
Of course it's nearly impossible to find a subject that everyone agrees on.
If you have enough followers, you can use Twitter or Facebook for crowd-sourcing, but you have to have a lot of tech savvy followers for this to work.In the days when computer magazines ruled, these things were done by staffs within a rigid review framework.
That's impractical nowadays.
You'd be hard pressed to find any print computer magazine that will tell you which is the best video utility out there.
And if they did, few of today's users would know to source from the magazine.
The situation is grim.Sourcing directly from Google is problematic.
Sellers market crap by repacking it on numerous similar Websites, re-branding it so it competes with itself.
Various SEO tricks help bring the product to the top of the search results.
These are one or two person operations with sometimes slick packaging and products that seldom work as advertised.
The companies protect themselves with onerous EULAs that say the product sucks, so it's all good and legal.
A few offer bogus trial periods or shareware-like deals that are out and out frauds, with nearly all of the important features disabled.
Often times the products just don't work at all.People credit Apple's creation of the iTunes App Store as part of the company's control freak nature.
That may be part of the its impetus, but we can't overlook the fact that the store manages to reign in the kind of crap we see in the online world where scammers dominate.There are a number of reviewing initiatives that hope to compete with the App Store for mindshare.
I suspect that they will eventually have some impact.
For now, however, there are simply too many sub-categories and too much confusion.
Which are the best font cataloging and organizing tools?
What is the best software for moving a DVD recording to my laptop?
What is the best software for converting an old XYwrite document to HTML?
What software best converts hard CRs to soft CRs?It's rare to find what you're looking for if there's any complexity involved.
You get junk instead.
Even when a trusted source like PCMag or a dedicated review site actually offers a listing of the particular utility you're seeking, it's a miracle if it shows up in the Google results.
Why? Because these sites aren't doing active SEO on every single page of content they're publishing.I've complained in the past about SEO and its impact on the Web.
All I get is flak from SEO consultants.
But that hasn't stopped me yet.
My favorite search example is "best cell phone plan.
" Good luck with that one.The app store of the future will have the 10 utilities that might work with star ratings telling readers what other users think.
Within the app store structure, if</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672472</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269969240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I feel like there are a few problems with the vision of running a terminal/mainframe model, first and most obvious being, as you said, it introduces a central point of failure for everyone.  If the server goes down, everyone on that server is suddenly unable to work.  People will counter by saying, "well you just distribute it across a bunch of servers so there's no more single point of failure."  It's harder than it sounds.  If you distribute across servers, how do you manage that distribution?  What happens when your method for managing that distribution goes down?
</p><p>I don't think it's insoluble, but for the time being it sounds like more trouble than it's worth.  One of the things it's important to keep in mind is how cheap computing has gotten.  We have more computing power in our cell phones than existed in the biggest computers a few decades ago, and we're putting hundreds of gigabytes into USB thumb drives.  It's ultimately not going to save you much money to forgo internal storage and computing power for a thin client, so people are usually going to get a thicker client anyway.  Once you have that internal storage and processing power, you may as well use it.
</p><p>Honestly, I think someone needs to invest in making a really smart syncing technologies (possibly involving filesystem improvements and making applications more aware of file changes) to make it so that we can work locally and "in the cloud" at the same time.  Imagine you could store all your data online so that it was encrypted and not even your host could access your data, but you could always access it seamlessly.  Edit a word document on your laptop, it syncs to the server and back to your desktop automatically (similar to Dropbox).  If you're working on someone else's PC it's also available via an online editor akin to Google Docs, and you could see each other editing similar to SubEthaEdit.  Take a picture on your camera, and it's automatically uploaded to a service like Picasa, which then automatically syncs it to your "Pictures" folder on your laptop and desktop.  It's also available to whatever social networking you're doing, bla bla bla.  Your online storage is version controlled similar to Apple's time machine.  Everything is stored online, but it's also cached on your local drives for quick and easy access.
</p><p>We have an awful lot of the components lying around to build something like this, but not integrated together.  And besides bandwidth/storage issues, whatever syncing software you use has to be smart enough to keep multiple devices in sync (files could be changed on one of any number of devices and the changes show up on all the rest).  It also has to be smart enough to only sync the files that have been changed, or rather only the portions of files which have been changed, and to do it immediately upon write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I feel like there are a few problems with the vision of running a terminal/mainframe model , first and most obvious being , as you said , it introduces a central point of failure for everyone .
If the server goes down , everyone on that server is suddenly unable to work .
People will counter by saying , " well you just distribute it across a bunch of servers so there 's no more single point of failure .
" It 's harder than it sounds .
If you distribute across servers , how do you manage that distribution ?
What happens when your method for managing that distribution goes down ?
I do n't think it 's insoluble , but for the time being it sounds like more trouble than it 's worth .
One of the things it 's important to keep in mind is how cheap computing has gotten .
We have more computing power in our cell phones than existed in the biggest computers a few decades ago , and we 're putting hundreds of gigabytes into USB thumb drives .
It 's ultimately not going to save you much money to forgo internal storage and computing power for a thin client , so people are usually going to get a thicker client anyway .
Once you have that internal storage and processing power , you may as well use it .
Honestly , I think someone needs to invest in making a really smart syncing technologies ( possibly involving filesystem improvements and making applications more aware of file changes ) to make it so that we can work locally and " in the cloud " at the same time .
Imagine you could store all your data online so that it was encrypted and not even your host could access your data , but you could always access it seamlessly .
Edit a word document on your laptop , it syncs to the server and back to your desktop automatically ( similar to Dropbox ) .
If you 're working on someone else 's PC it 's also available via an online editor akin to Google Docs , and you could see each other editing similar to SubEthaEdit .
Take a picture on your camera , and it 's automatically uploaded to a service like Picasa , which then automatically syncs it to your " Pictures " folder on your laptop and desktop .
It 's also available to whatever social networking you 're doing , bla bla bla .
Your online storage is version controlled similar to Apple 's time machine .
Everything is stored online , but it 's also cached on your local drives for quick and easy access .
We have an awful lot of the components lying around to build something like this , but not integrated together .
And besides bandwidth/storage issues , whatever syncing software you use has to be smart enough to keep multiple devices in sync ( files could be changed on one of any number of devices and the changes show up on all the rest ) .
It also has to be smart enough to only sync the files that have been changed , or rather only the portions of files which have been changed , and to do it immediately upon write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I feel like there are a few problems with the vision of running a terminal/mainframe model, first and most obvious being, as you said, it introduces a central point of failure for everyone.
If the server goes down, everyone on that server is suddenly unable to work.
People will counter by saying, "well you just distribute it across a bunch of servers so there's no more single point of failure.
"  It's harder than it sounds.
If you distribute across servers, how do you manage that distribution?
What happens when your method for managing that distribution goes down?
I don't think it's insoluble, but for the time being it sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
One of the things it's important to keep in mind is how cheap computing has gotten.
We have more computing power in our cell phones than existed in the biggest computers a few decades ago, and we're putting hundreds of gigabytes into USB thumb drives.
It's ultimately not going to save you much money to forgo internal storage and computing power for a thin client, so people are usually going to get a thicker client anyway.
Once you have that internal storage and processing power, you may as well use it.
Honestly, I think someone needs to invest in making a really smart syncing technologies (possibly involving filesystem improvements and making applications more aware of file changes) to make it so that we can work locally and "in the cloud" at the same time.
Imagine you could store all your data online so that it was encrypted and not even your host could access your data, but you could always access it seamlessly.
Edit a word document on your laptop, it syncs to the server and back to your desktop automatically (similar to Dropbox).
If you're working on someone else's PC it's also available via an online editor akin to Google Docs, and you could see each other editing similar to SubEthaEdit.
Take a picture on your camera, and it's automatically uploaded to a service like Picasa, which then automatically syncs it to your "Pictures" folder on your laptop and desktop.
It's also available to whatever social networking you're doing, bla bla bla.
Your online storage is version controlled similar to Apple's time machine.
Everything is stored online, but it's also cached on your local drives for quick and easy access.
We have an awful lot of the components lying around to build something like this, but not integrated together.
And besides bandwidth/storage issues, whatever syncing software you use has to be smart enough to keep multiple devices in sync (files could be changed on one of any number of devices and the changes show up on all the rest).
It also has to be smart enough to only sync the files that have been changed, or rather only the portions of files which have been changed, and to do it immediately upon write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672544</id>
	<title>internet os = ubisoft drm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the mess with ubisoft's god awful DRM, why do people think having a cloud based operating system is a good idea? And if it can survive a disconnection and thus doesn't need the net at that point, what's the point in having it in the cloud at all?<br>There are too many potential problems for cloud based OSs, such as a company owning your data instead of you, potential for their servers to be hacked, net disconnection, etc, all for the advantage of slightly cheaper hardware for you. I want to own the data on my hard drive while it's not connected to the net.</p><p>Crappy trade off in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the mess with ubisoft 's god awful DRM , why do people think having a cloud based operating system is a good idea ?
And if it can survive a disconnection and thus does n't need the net at that point , what 's the point in having it in the cloud at all ? There are too many potential problems for cloud based OSs , such as a company owning your data instead of you , potential for their servers to be hacked , net disconnection , etc , all for the advantage of slightly cheaper hardware for you .
I want to own the data on my hard drive while it 's not connected to the net.Crappy trade off in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the mess with ubisoft's god awful DRM, why do people think having a cloud based operating system is a good idea?
And if it can survive a disconnection and thus doesn't need the net at that point, what's the point in having it in the cloud at all?There are too many potential problems for cloud based OSs, such as a company owning your data instead of you, potential for their servers to be hacked, net disconnection, etc, all for the advantage of slightly cheaper hardware for you.
I want to own the data on my hard drive while it's not connected to the net.Crappy trade off in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669824</id>
	<title>He's chanelling Stallman is why it sounds familar</title>
	<author>xzvf</author>
	<datestamp>1269961200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>O'rielly is pointing out the same dangers of the Cloud as Stallman, but in a reasonable voice.  The question is how to preserve the DIY environment when hardware is sealed (see iPad) and software is ran on corporate computers.  Will innovation be constrained or will the cloud be open enough to allow people to change vendors easily without total reworks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>O'rielly is pointing out the same dangers of the Cloud as Stallman , but in a reasonable voice .
The question is how to preserve the DIY environment when hardware is sealed ( see iPad ) and software is ran on corporate computers .
Will innovation be constrained or will the cloud be open enough to allow people to change vendors easily without total reworks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O'rielly is pointing out the same dangers of the Cloud as Stallman, but in a reasonable voice.
The question is how to preserve the DIY environment when hardware is sealed (see iPad) and software is ran on corporate computers.
Will innovation be constrained or will the cloud be open enough to allow people to change vendors easily without total reworks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That article isn't exactly cromulent. Is there a daily prize for <i>obviousness</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That article is n't exactly cromulent .
Is there a daily prize for obviousness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That article isn't exactly cromulent.
Is there a daily prize for obviousness?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671574</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that this is not at all what the Article is talking about. AT ALL. (I know it's slashdot...)</p><p>In particular the article talks about the remote services that a local application would use as part of the platform. There is no mention of getting rid of local ressources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that this is not at all what the Article is talking about .
AT ALL .
( I know it 's slashdot... ) In particular the article talks about the remote services that a local application would use as part of the platform .
There is no mention of getting rid of local ressources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that this is not at all what the Article is talking about.
AT ALL.
(I know it's slashdot...)In particular the article talks about the remote services that a local application would use as part of the platform.
There is no mention of getting rid of local ressources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669862</id>
	<title>Plan 9 Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does sound like everything Plan 9 was trying to solve and did solve to a certain extent.<br>The trouble is plan 9 was too early for its time and it still is.<br>There is a larger problem too. Ownership. It is clear who owns and responsible for<br>individual machines. But who owns the mystical "between the machines space".<br>Google? Government? United Nations? Can't pick which is worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does sound like everything Plan 9 was trying to solve and did solve to a certain extent.The trouble is plan 9 was too early for its time and it still is.There is a larger problem too .
Ownership. It is clear who owns and responsible forindividual machines .
But who owns the mystical " between the machines space " .Google ?
Government ? United Nations ?
Ca n't pick which is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does sound like everything Plan 9 was trying to solve and did solve to a certain extent.The trouble is plan 9 was too early for its time and it still is.There is a larger problem too.
Ownership. It is clear who owns and responsible forindividual machines.
But who owns the mystical "between the machines space".Google?
Government? United Nations?
Can't pick which is worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673342</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Ogi\_UnixNut</author>
	<datestamp>1269971880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, in fact I built just that for my school many years ago. 10 computers (PIII's), set up as an openmosix terminal cluster. It worked really well. If all terminals were in use people had the power of one PIII just like normal, and if fewer people used it, then there would be more power for everyone. This was far more efficient, especially as the computers would be on anyway, and scaled really well, as we didn't need to invest in really beefy servers to host all the apps on. It really was cost effective, and I thought at the time it would be the way forward.
</p><p>
Unfortunately back then nobody (outside the IT department) heard of Linux, and refused to use it, so the system was eventually reverted back to plain Windows boxes.
</p><p>Still, it was a great experience, and I learnt a lot building the system, it is a shame openmosix is no longer developed. I think that even today, it would be an awesome system, primarily because of it's cost effectiveness and efficient use of resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , in fact I built just that for my school many years ago .
10 computers ( PIII 's ) , set up as an openmosix terminal cluster .
It worked really well .
If all terminals were in use people had the power of one PIII just like normal , and if fewer people used it , then there would be more power for everyone .
This was far more efficient , especially as the computers would be on anyway , and scaled really well , as we did n't need to invest in really beefy servers to host all the apps on .
It really was cost effective , and I thought at the time it would be the way forward .
Unfortunately back then nobody ( outside the IT department ) heard of Linux , and refused to use it , so the system was eventually reverted back to plain Windows boxes .
Still , it was a great experience , and I learnt a lot building the system , it is a shame openmosix is no longer developed .
I think that even today , it would be an awesome system , primarily because of it 's cost effectiveness and efficient use of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, in fact I built just that for my school many years ago.
10 computers (PIII's), set up as an openmosix terminal cluster.
It worked really well.
If all terminals were in use people had the power of one PIII just like normal, and if fewer people used it, then there would be more power for everyone.
This was far more efficient, especially as the computers would be on anyway, and scaled really well, as we didn't need to invest in really beefy servers to host all the apps on.
It really was cost effective, and I thought at the time it would be the way forward.
Unfortunately back then nobody (outside the IT department) heard of Linux, and refused to use it, so the system was eventually reverted back to plain Windows boxes.
Still, it was a great experience, and I learnt a lot building the system, it is a shame openmosix is no longer developed.
I think that even today, it would be an awesome system, primarily because of it's cost effectiveness and efficient use of resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670500</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university. We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server. Even though this was all done on a local network (much more reliable in those days than the internet), it was still a complete disaster.</p></div><p>Funny, we did the same thing at my Uni (EE) as well via NFS mounts (and a lot of diskless clients as well). Things worked splendidly.</p><p>Even things likely lowly SparcStation 5s and 10s were used, and on those machines we had a wrapper script for the heavy duty applications (e.g., Matlab) that would do an 'rsh' onto beefier machines.</p><p>The idea is sound for many situations (not all of course); Perhaps it was your implementation that sucked?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 90 's we tried this at my old university .
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server .
Even though this was all done on a local network ( much more reliable in those days than the internet ) , it was still a complete disaster.Funny , we did the same thing at my Uni ( EE ) as well via NFS mounts ( and a lot of diskless clients as well ) .
Things worked splendidly.Even things likely lowly SparcStation 5s and 10s were used , and on those machines we had a wrapper script for the heavy duty applications ( e.g. , Matlab ) that would do an 'rsh ' onto beefier machines.The idea is sound for many situations ( not all of course ) ; Perhaps it was your implementation that sucked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 90's we tried this at my old university.
We networked all our computers and put all our apps on a central server.
Even though this was all done on a local network (much more reliable in those days than the internet), it was still a complete disaster.Funny, we did the same thing at my Uni (EE) as well via NFS mounts (and a lot of diskless clients as well).
Things worked splendidly.Even things likely lowly SparcStation 5s and 10s were used, and on those machines we had a wrapper script for the heavy duty applications (e.g., Matlab) that would do an 'rsh' onto beefier machines.The idea is sound for many situations (not all of course); Perhaps it was your implementation that sucked?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669820</id>
	<title>Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So where is the quote of the hour coming from?  Sheep hearders?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where is the quote of the hour coming from ?
Sheep hearders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where is the quote of the hour coming from?
Sheep hearders?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672760</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1269970140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How crumulent is it?  We know it's not exactly cromulent, but you've left it's actual cromulence vague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How crumulent is it ?
We know it 's not exactly cromulent , but you 've left it 's actual cromulence vague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How crumulent is it?
We know it's not exactly cromulent, but you've left it's actual cromulence vague.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671220</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1269965700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This whole "Internet OS" thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days. It seems like every ten years or so, everyone is talking about thin clients in every office, with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere (now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet). Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead. But in every actual deployment I've seen, it only causes hassles, additional expense, and headaches.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's already happening though. Today's term for it is "cloud computing" - but it's the same idea, and people are embracing it to a huge extent. Services like GMail and Hotmail for e-mail, Google DOcs for office stuff, Google Apps - all being taken up rather quickly. Hell, Facebook is probably the top cloud-computing platform out there, offering messaging, gaming and many other services to millions of users.</p><p>So it may be a fad, but it's one that's catching on again.</p><p>Now, the forces pulling us back to the smart client model might very well be the iPhone/iPad, for its inability to run Flash means a lot of these cloud-computing apps don't work. Instead, users create local versions of the same apps. Hell, cellphones that require "the cloud" are also popular (Android, WebOS), and much to Palm's demise, switching from WebOS to Android is quite simple since Android just grabs your data "off the cloud" (like WebOS does), meaning you don't have to go through lengthy transfer procedures.</p><p>A lot of stuff in computing is cyclical - hell, we seem to repeat history continually. The same goes for CPUs and offboard controllers - stuff done by offboard controllers is migrated into the CPU (e.g., FPU, memory controllers), and stuff used to be done by CPUs is migrated to offboard controller (e.g., GPU). And then CPUs will start spawning GPU-like things to move the GPU back onboard, while spurning other onboard tasks offboard...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole " Internet OS " thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days .
It seems like every ten years or so , everyone is talking about thin clients in every office , with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere ( now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet ) .
Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead .
But in every actual deployment I 've seen , it only causes hassles , additional expense , and headaches.It 's already happening though .
Today 's term for it is " cloud computing " - but it 's the same idea , and people are embracing it to a huge extent .
Services like GMail and Hotmail for e-mail , Google DOcs for office stuff , Google Apps - all being taken up rather quickly .
Hell , Facebook is probably the top cloud-computing platform out there , offering messaging , gaming and many other services to millions of users.So it may be a fad , but it 's one that 's catching on again.Now , the forces pulling us back to the smart client model might very well be the iPhone/iPad , for its inability to run Flash means a lot of these cloud-computing apps do n't work .
Instead , users create local versions of the same apps .
Hell , cellphones that require " the cloud " are also popular ( Android , WebOS ) , and much to Palm 's demise , switching from WebOS to Android is quite simple since Android just grabs your data " off the cloud " ( like WebOS does ) , meaning you do n't have to go through lengthy transfer procedures.A lot of stuff in computing is cyclical - hell , we seem to repeat history continually .
The same goes for CPUs and offboard controllers - stuff done by offboard controllers is migrated into the CPU ( e.g. , FPU , memory controllers ) , and stuff used to be done by CPUs is migrated to offboard controller ( e.g. , GPU ) .
And then CPUs will start spawning GPU-like things to move the GPU back onboard , while spurning other onboard tasks offboard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole "Internet OS" thing reminds me of the periodic resurgences of the dumb terminal/thin client idea that goes back to the mainframe days.
It seems like every ten years or so, everyone is talking about thin clients in every office, with the OS and apps running on some offsite server somewhere (now with the added twist of multiple servers over the internet).
Ostensibly this is seen as a good way to save IT money and overhead.
But in every actual deployment I've seen, it only causes hassles, additional expense, and headaches.It's already happening though.
Today's term for it is "cloud computing" - but it's the same idea, and people are embracing it to a huge extent.
Services like GMail and Hotmail for e-mail, Google DOcs for office stuff, Google Apps - all being taken up rather quickly.
Hell, Facebook is probably the top cloud-computing platform out there, offering messaging, gaming and many other services to millions of users.So it may be a fad, but it's one that's catching on again.Now, the forces pulling us back to the smart client model might very well be the iPhone/iPad, for its inability to run Flash means a lot of these cloud-computing apps don't work.
Instead, users create local versions of the same apps.
Hell, cellphones that require "the cloud" are also popular (Android, WebOS), and much to Palm's demise, switching from WebOS to Android is quite simple since Android just grabs your data "off the cloud" (like WebOS does), meaning you don't have to go through lengthy transfer procedures.A lot of stuff in computing is cyclical - hell, we seem to repeat history continually.
The same goes for CPUs and offboard controllers - stuff done by offboard controllers is migrated into the CPU (e.g., FPU, memory controllers), and stuff used to be done by CPUs is migrated to offboard controller (e.g., GPU).
And then CPUs will start spawning GPU-like things to move the GPU back onboard, while spurning other onboard tasks offboard...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269959760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also dumb.  Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine, why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal?  Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also dumb .
Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine , why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal ?
Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also dumb.
Even if you bought a low-end Intel Atom machine, why would you want to waste that CPU letting it be a dumb terminal?
Put that CPU to work by enabling it to do tasks independently even if the network connection fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669490</id>
	<title>The Internet has an operating system???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not know that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not know that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669488</id>
	<title>Do..</title>
	<author>the\_leander</author>
	<datestamp>1269959280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...people still pay to go to this guys seminars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...people still pay to go to this guys seminars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...people still pay to go to this guys seminars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669640</id>
	<title>Internet as a living entity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If were a living thing, it would have cancer, several kinds of it, spread all around the body. Botnets, zombies armies, spam, malware sites... a good percent of it is just badly sick. It have several brains too, some of them playing against the health of the whole body by not letting the "blood" flow freely all around, as some governments censoring it because political reasons or lobbying ones.<br><br>It have its strengths too, is maturing (hopely), have a good defense system so the sickness spread around don't infect everything, and it evolves fast (even if limited by laws, patents, trolls, etc), getting more personal and localized.<br><br>With a bit of luck people, institutions and governments starts to worry about its health, the ecosystem that it is and start working on preserving it as much as the planet we live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If were a living thing , it would have cancer , several kinds of it , spread all around the body .
Botnets , zombies armies , spam , malware sites... a good percent of it is just badly sick .
It have several brains too , some of them playing against the health of the whole body by not letting the " blood " flow freely all around , as some governments censoring it because political reasons or lobbying ones.It have its strengths too , is maturing ( hopely ) , have a good defense system so the sickness spread around do n't infect everything , and it evolves fast ( even if limited by laws , patents , trolls , etc ) , getting more personal and localized.With a bit of luck people , institutions and governments starts to worry about its health , the ecosystem that it is and start working on preserving it as much as the planet we live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If were a living thing, it would have cancer, several kinds of it, spread all around the body.
Botnets, zombies armies, spam, malware sites... a good percent of it is just badly sick.
It have several brains too, some of them playing against the health of the whole body by not letting the "blood" flow freely all around, as some governments censoring it because political reasons or lobbying ones.It have its strengths too, is maturing (hopely), have a good defense system so the sickness spread around don't infect everything, and it evolves fast (even if limited by laws, patents, trolls, etc), getting more personal and localized.With a bit of luck people, institutions and governments starts to worry about its health, the ecosystem that it is and start working on preserving it as much as the planet we live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669832</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1269961200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dumb terminals have the capability to eliminate nearly all hardware requirements for the client except for ability to process the connection.  On the other hand they require extreme levels of backup on the server side that has the potential to be cost prohibitive.<br>
<br>
We may be at the point where things are stable enough (How often do you loose your gmail?  Yes it went down for me the other day but its the first time in at least a couple years).  The risks are much higher than the gains but they can be overcome if enough care is spent (not saying it will be but...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb terminals have the capability to eliminate nearly all hardware requirements for the client except for ability to process the connection .
On the other hand they require extreme levels of backup on the server side that has the potential to be cost prohibitive .
We may be at the point where things are stable enough ( How often do you loose your gmail ?
Yes it went down for me the other day but its the first time in at least a couple years ) .
The risks are much higher than the gains but they can be overcome if enough care is spent ( not saying it will be but... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb terminals have the capability to eliminate nearly all hardware requirements for the client except for ability to process the connection.
On the other hand they require extreme levels of backup on the server side that has the potential to be cost prohibitive.
We may be at the point where things are stable enough (How often do you loose your gmail?
Yes it went down for me the other day but its the first time in at least a couple years).
The risks are much higher than the gains but they can be overcome if enough care is spent (not saying it will be but...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670298</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb terminals and smart people don't mix</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1269962880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>running things locally would work great if &gt;90\% these days didn't need files from some sort of network drive/server/export/etc, requiring network access anyways. Lots of commercial software won't run if it can't get a license from the network, Outlook is just about worthless without a network connection. So really you need that connection anyways. Why do you seem to think that the loss of network access would need to imeditly kill any thing you were doing at the time? wait for the network to come back up, and resume work as if nothing happened.

</p><p>Why would you buy an Atom for this? a ARM SoC, Nvidia tegra 2 comes to mind, would fit in the monitor and be able to do all of this. Since the client CPU isn't running any apps, the type isn't important on the client end. Since the apps are executed on server, if it has X86 compatible CPUs all your software should work fine. Also this is really only a concern on proprietary apps, lots of the major opensource apps work on ARM/PPC/blackfin just fine with little to no modification. Mplayer maybe not, by why does your client need to be able to play videos? flash, again not on ARM yet, but that would seem to be a good thing in a corporate network. Youtube stops working, hulu, lots of other time wasters.
</p><p>On linux with X, you can already do this, GDM has support for logging into a remote machine, worst case, you need to run GDM on the real hardware, and make the X session a SSH+key+exec gnome/kde/etc. The only catch here is that removable devices don't work as well, without a few more games, but in a coperate environment that may not be a bad thing. In fact this should all work fine for off network use(slower but useable) by just checking to see if you are at home, if not vpn home and then do the login.
</p><p> Of course i have no idea how to do any of this if you need windows, and it would not be a good idea for cpu/gpu intensive loads, photoshop/CAD/3d animation. Windows doesn't really support showing only a few windows as windowing calls and not pushing a pile of pixels. Yes i know RDP handles only updating small parts of the screen at once, but that doesn't handle encrypting the stream, the key presses, mouse movements, etc. To be honest windows seems to really care about which machine something is being run on. Also I'm not sure how licenses would work for say, excel, it's only installed on one or a handful of machines, yes it's being run by 30 users at a time, but it's only installed in one place. Do you need to seats of Excel if people share a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>running things locally would work great if &gt; 90 \ % these days did n't need files from some sort of network drive/server/export/etc , requiring network access anyways .
Lots of commercial software wo n't run if it ca n't get a license from the network , Outlook is just about worthless without a network connection .
So really you need that connection anyways .
Why do you seem to think that the loss of network access would need to imeditly kill any thing you were doing at the time ?
wait for the network to come back up , and resume work as if nothing happened .
Why would you buy an Atom for this ?
a ARM SoC , Nvidia tegra 2 comes to mind , would fit in the monitor and be able to do all of this .
Since the client CPU is n't running any apps , the type is n't important on the client end .
Since the apps are executed on server , if it has X86 compatible CPUs all your software should work fine .
Also this is really only a concern on proprietary apps , lots of the major opensource apps work on ARM/PPC/blackfin just fine with little to no modification .
Mplayer maybe not , by why does your client need to be able to play videos ?
flash , again not on ARM yet , but that would seem to be a good thing in a corporate network .
Youtube stops working , hulu , lots of other time wasters .
On linux with X , you can already do this , GDM has support for logging into a remote machine , worst case , you need to run GDM on the real hardware , and make the X session a SSH + key + exec gnome/kde/etc .
The only catch here is that removable devices do n't work as well , without a few more games , but in a coperate environment that may not be a bad thing .
In fact this should all work fine for off network use ( slower but useable ) by just checking to see if you are at home , if not vpn home and then do the login .
Of course i have no idea how to do any of this if you need windows , and it would not be a good idea for cpu/gpu intensive loads , photoshop/CAD/3d animation .
Windows does n't really support showing only a few windows as windowing calls and not pushing a pile of pixels .
Yes i know RDP handles only updating small parts of the screen at once , but that does n't handle encrypting the stream , the key presses , mouse movements , etc .
To be honest windows seems to really care about which machine something is being run on .
Also I 'm not sure how licenses would work for say , excel , it 's only installed on one or a handful of machines , yes it 's being run by 30 users at a time , but it 's only installed in one place .
Do you need to seats of Excel if people share a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>running things locally would work great if &gt;90\% these days didn't need files from some sort of network drive/server/export/etc, requiring network access anyways.
Lots of commercial software won't run if it can't get a license from the network, Outlook is just about worthless without a network connection.
So really you need that connection anyways.
Why do you seem to think that the loss of network access would need to imeditly kill any thing you were doing at the time?
wait for the network to come back up, and resume work as if nothing happened.
Why would you buy an Atom for this?
a ARM SoC, Nvidia tegra 2 comes to mind, would fit in the monitor and be able to do all of this.
Since the client CPU isn't running any apps, the type isn't important on the client end.
Since the apps are executed on server, if it has X86 compatible CPUs all your software should work fine.
Also this is really only a concern on proprietary apps, lots of the major opensource apps work on ARM/PPC/blackfin just fine with little to no modification.
Mplayer maybe not, by why does your client need to be able to play videos?
flash, again not on ARM yet, but that would seem to be a good thing in a corporate network.
Youtube stops working, hulu, lots of other time wasters.
On linux with X, you can already do this, GDM has support for logging into a remote machine, worst case, you need to run GDM on the real hardware, and make the X session a SSH+key+exec gnome/kde/etc.
The only catch here is that removable devices don't work as well, without a few more games, but in a coperate environment that may not be a bad thing.
In fact this should all work fine for off network use(slower but useable) by just checking to see if you are at home, if not vpn home and then do the login.
Of course i have no idea how to do any of this if you need windows, and it would not be a good idea for cpu/gpu intensive loads, photoshop/CAD/3d animation.
Windows doesn't really support showing only a few windows as windowing calls and not pushing a pile of pixels.
Yes i know RDP handles only updating small parts of the screen at once, but that doesn't handle encrypting the stream, the key presses, mouse movements, etc.
To be honest windows seems to really care about which machine something is being run on.
Also I'm not sure how licenses would work for say, excel, it's only installed on one or a handful of machines, yes it's being run by 30 users at a time, but it's only installed in one place.
Do you need to seats of Excel if people share a computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673120</id>
	<title>What we really want is the best of both worlds</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1269971160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no reason why we can't have both - data backed up/synchronized to the "cloud", and applications that can continue to run on locally cached data when the network is unavailable for whatever reason. There are still some cases where this is problematic - e.g. my iPhone Google Maps application really doesn't work in the hinterlands, as the phone won't have the maps locally stored - but this is really just a problem of caches not being big enough or smart enough to do what we need. The problem will be partly solved by brute force - it looks like flash memory will continue to get more dense for a while - and partly by increased intelligence from the applications themselves. In the case of the maps application, it's easy to envision a more evolved version of Google maps realizing that I'm about to leave a cell phone coverage area, and in the background, downloading maps I'm likely to need before it's too late to get them. </p><p>I think this is really what TFA is trying to point out, but now I'm probably in contention for the Captain Obvious prize myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason why we ca n't have both - data backed up/synchronized to the " cloud " , and applications that can continue to run on locally cached data when the network is unavailable for whatever reason .
There are still some cases where this is problematic - e.g .
my iPhone Google Maps application really does n't work in the hinterlands , as the phone wo n't have the maps locally stored - but this is really just a problem of caches not being big enough or smart enough to do what we need .
The problem will be partly solved by brute force - it looks like flash memory will continue to get more dense for a while - and partly by increased intelligence from the applications themselves .
In the case of the maps application , it 's easy to envision a more evolved version of Google maps realizing that I 'm about to leave a cell phone coverage area , and in the background , downloading maps I 'm likely to need before it 's too late to get them .
I think this is really what TFA is trying to point out , but now I 'm probably in contention for the Captain Obvious prize myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason why we can't have both - data backed up/synchronized to the "cloud", and applications that can continue to run on locally cached data when the network is unavailable for whatever reason.
There are still some cases where this is problematic - e.g.
my iPhone Google Maps application really doesn't work in the hinterlands, as the phone won't have the maps locally stored - but this is really just a problem of caches not being big enough or smart enough to do what we need.
The problem will be partly solved by brute force - it looks like flash memory will continue to get more dense for a while - and partly by increased intelligence from the applications themselves.
In the case of the maps application, it's easy to envision a more evolved version of Google maps realizing that I'm about to leave a cell phone coverage area, and in the background, downloading maps I'm likely to need before it's too late to get them.
I think this is really what TFA is trying to point out, but now I'm probably in contention for the Captain Obvious prize myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670116</id>
	<title>Re:P or NP</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1269962280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  Your situation of working offline is a particular case of working online.  It just happens to have high latency.  So the easiest solution, for the user, is one which generalizes to encompass high latency.
<br> <br>
The converse is not true.  Of course you can retain the capabilities of an offline environment even after you add a wire to it, but those capabilities do not generalize to managing the resources on the other end of the wire.
<br> <br>
The easiest solution to implement is a pencil and a piece of paper.  Oh, you want capabilities too?  Well, that's different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Your situation of working offline is a particular case of working online .
It just happens to have high latency .
So the easiest solution , for the user , is one which generalizes to encompass high latency .
The converse is not true .
Of course you can retain the capabilities of an offline environment even after you add a wire to it , but those capabilities do not generalize to managing the resources on the other end of the wire .
The easiest solution to implement is a pencil and a piece of paper .
Oh , you want capabilities too ?
Well , that 's different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Your situation of working offline is a particular case of working online.
It just happens to have high latency.
So the easiest solution, for the user, is one which generalizes to encompass high latency.
The converse is not true.
Of course you can retain the capabilities of an offline environment even after you add a wire to it, but those capabilities do not generalize to managing the resources on the other end of the wire.
The easiest solution to implement is a pencil and a piece of paper.
Oh, you want capabilities too?
Well, that's different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673964</id>
	<title>Re:P or NP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269973980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work <b>offline</b> in the first place".</p></div><p>FTFY.  Having my data available on any online computer or device that I happen to be at *increases* its availability to me, even in the presence of occasional outages.  There's down-sides, such as privacy, but availability isn't one of them: it's a net positive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the easiest solution , which seems to escape almost everybody , is " do n't work offline in the first place " .FTFY .
Having my data available on any online computer or device that I happen to be at * increases * its availability to me , even in the presence of occasional outages .
There 's down-sides , such as privacy , but availability is n't one of them : it 's a net positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work offline in the first place".FTFY.
Having my data available on any online computer or device that I happen to be at *increases* its availability to me, even in the presence of occasional outages.
There's down-sides, such as privacy, but availability isn't one of them: it's a net positive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31675680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31674034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1255202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31674034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31675680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31670500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31671220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31672472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31673120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1255202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1255202.31669820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
