<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_1629246</id>
	<title>Hydraulic Analog Computer From 1949</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244049360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mbone writes <i>"In the New York Times, there is an interesting story about <a href="http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/guest-column-like-water-for-money/">a hydraulic analog computer from 1949</a> used to model the feedback loops in the economy. According to the article, 'copies of the '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moniac">Moniac</a>,' as it became known in the United States, were built and sold to Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Ford Motor Company and the Central Bank of Guatemala, among others.' There is a cool <a href="http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com\_mediadb/task,view/idstr,CU-AllanMcRobie-Phillips2004/Itemid,26">video of the computer in operation</a> at Cambridge University. I remember that the Instrumentation Lab at MIT still had an analog computer in its computer center in the mid-1970s. Even then, it seemed archaic, and now this form of computation is largely forgotten. With 14 machines built, it must have been one of the more successful analog computers &mdash; a supercomputer of its day. Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mbone writes " In the New York Times , there is an interesting story about a hydraulic analog computer from 1949 used to model the feedback loops in the economy .
According to the article , 'copies of the 'Moniac, ' as it became known in the United States , were built and sold to Harvard , Cambridge , Oxford , Ford Motor Company and the Central Bank of Guatemala , among others .
' There is a cool video of the computer in operation at Cambridge University .
I remember that the Instrumentation Lab at MIT still had an analog computer in its computer center in the mid-1970s .
Even then , it seemed archaic , and now this form of computation is largely forgotten .
With 14 machines built , it must have been one of the more successful analog computers    a supercomputer of its day .
Of course , you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mbone writes "In the New York Times, there is an interesting story about a hydraulic analog computer from 1949 used to model the feedback loops in the economy.
According to the article, 'copies of the 'Moniac,' as it became known in the United States, were built and sold to Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Ford Motor Company and the Central Bank of Guatemala, among others.
' There is a cool video of the computer in operation at Cambridge University.
I remember that the Instrumentation Lab at MIT still had an analog computer in its computer center in the mid-1970s.
Even then, it seemed archaic, and now this form of computation is largely forgotten.
With 14 machines built, it must have been one of the more successful analog computers — a supercomputer of its day.
Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204049</id>
	<title>Re:I Once Had a Toy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're probably thinking of a hydrodynamic builder's set...I had one too: http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp\_Q\_pn\_E\_3081216</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're probably thinking of a hydrodynamic builder 's set...I had one too : http : //scientificsonline.com/product.asp \ _Q \ _pn \ _E \ _3081216</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're probably thinking of a hydrodynamic builder's set...I had one too: http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp\_Q\_pn\_E\_3081216</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201295</id>
	<title>wear and tear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As all mechanical machines are a subject to wear I bet it could 'simulate' a catastrophic loss of pressure.</p><p>Parhaps wear is something not counted with in economics and should be.</p><p>(Now lets get back to learning for tomorrows macroeconomics exam)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As all mechanical machines are a subject to wear I bet it could 'simulate ' a catastrophic loss of pressure.Parhaps wear is something not counted with in economics and should be .
( Now lets get back to learning for tomorrows macroeconomics exam )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As all mechanical machines are a subject to wear I bet it could 'simulate' a catastrophic loss of pressure.Parhaps wear is something not counted with in economics and should be.
(Now lets get back to learning for tomorrows macroeconomics exam)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199251</id>
	<title>An idea 60 years too late...</title>
	<author>Onyma</author>
	<datestamp>1244058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adding a little bit of dye to the water would make that thing a lot easier to read!  (probably just a shortcoming of the demo video)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding a little bit of dye to the water would make that thing a lot easier to read !
( probably just a shortcoming of the demo video )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding a little bit of dye to the water would make that thing a lot easier to read!
(probably just a shortcoming of the demo video)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199929</id>
	<title>before there was MAKE</title>
	<author>duckHole</author>
	<datestamp>1244061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>one of CL Strong's "Amateur Scientist" articles in SciAm gave construction details for logic units based on water jets... gates, flip-flops, etc.  1966 or thereabouts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>one of CL Strong 's " Amateur Scientist " articles in SciAm gave construction details for logic units based on water jets... gates , flip-flops , etc .
1966 or thereabouts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one of CL Strong's "Amateur Scientist" articles in SciAm gave construction details for logic units based on water jets... gates, flip-flops, etc.
1966 or thereabouts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198635</id>
	<title>Trend setting</title>
	<author>DrugCheese</author>
	<datestamp>1244055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was water cooled before water cooling was cool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was water cooled before water cooling was cool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was water cooled before water cooling was cool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198739</id>
	<title>Not quite</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1244055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With 14 machines built, it must have been one of the more successful analog computers</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; <br>In the early 80's the USN had over 30 analog computers driving various submarine simulators.  Heck, each of the original '41 SSBN's had an analog computer driving the hovering system.  Then there was the 100+ analog installations of the CONALOG system.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Etc... Etc...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With 14 machines built , it must have been one of the more successful analog computers   In the early 80 's the USN had over 30 analog computers driving various submarine simulators .
Heck , each of the original '41 SSBN 's had an analog computer driving the hovering system .
Then there was the 100 + analog installations of the CONALOG system .
  Etc... Etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 14 machines built, it must have been one of the more successful analog computers
  In the early 80's the USN had over 30 analog computers driving various submarine simulators.
Heck, each of the original '41 SSBN's had an analog computer driving the hovering system.
Then there was the 100+ analog installations of the CONALOG system.
  Etc... Etc...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198761</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how anything you've said implies that computers can't model macroeconomics. The kind unstable behaviour you're describing certainly limits the accuracy, but instabilities can definitely be predicted too. It's not as futile as you seem to be making out.</p><p>Also, people's sense of wealth and understanding of risk isn't something that should need to be modeled, those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how anything you 've said implies that computers ca n't model macroeconomics .
The kind unstable behaviour you 're describing certainly limits the accuracy , but instabilities can definitely be predicted too .
It 's not as futile as you seem to be making out.Also , people 's sense of wealth and understanding of risk is n't something that should need to be modeled , those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how anything you've said implies that computers can't model macroeconomics.
The kind unstable behaviour you're describing certainly limits the accuracy, but instabilities can definitely be predicted too.
It's not as futile as you seem to be making out.Also, people's sense of wealth and understanding of risk isn't something that should need to be modeled, those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198561</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1244055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can. It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all. This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst. Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers. People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed. Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.</p></div><p>Yeah, but if I can program a fly on the wall to recognize speech on the NYSE trading floor, and whenever it hears the words "The payoff is greater than the risk.  Even the big guys are doing it like crazy.  What's the worst that could happen?" then it sets off an alarm and shoots every Fortune 1000 controller in the face with a lethal stream of sulphuric acid... not only could I predict these things over a year before they happen, but after the two or three are predicted, I'm sure it would be at least 20 years before anything like this happens again... in the NYSE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can .
It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply , you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk , and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on , or none at all .
This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble , and all bubbles burst .
Many people saw this coming years , even decades ago , and did n't have supercomputers .
People understood this scenario centuries ago , before computers even existed .
Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario , not the solution.Yeah , but if I can program a fly on the wall to recognize speech on the NYSE trading floor , and whenever it hears the words " The payoff is greater than the risk .
Even the big guys are doing it like crazy .
What 's the worst that could happen ?
" then it sets off an alarm and shoots every Fortune 1000 controller in the face with a lethal stream of sulphuric acid... not only could I predict these things over a year before they happen , but after the two or three are predicted , I 'm sure it would be at least 20 years before anything like this happens again... in the NYSE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.
It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all.
This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst.
Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers.
People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed.
Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.Yeah, but if I can program a fly on the wall to recognize speech on the NYSE trading floor, and whenever it hears the words "The payoff is greater than the risk.
Even the big guys are doing it like crazy.
What's the worst that could happen?
" then it sets off an alarm and shoots every Fortune 1000 controller in the face with a lethal stream of sulphuric acid... not only could I predict these things over a year before they happen, but after the two or three are predicted, I'm sure it would be at least 20 years before anything like this happens again... in the NYSE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201207</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Q-Cat5</author>
	<datestamp>1244023380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a difference between mapping rules in a general fashion, and applying them to actual situations.  Invariably, reality always has elements that differ from the model, and thereby make it inaccurate.  This is why reductionism doesn't generally map back accurately to the big picture.  Understanding a component is different from understanding how the component integrates into the whole, and how other components within the whole interact with, and alter, the component.<br>
<br>
Human behavior is very nearly impossible to accurately model at the individual level.  You hear "I never would have expected him to do that" when people speak about their next door neighbors who go on homicidal rampages.  Husbands or wives are shocked when the spouse that they've lived with for years or decades has an affair, buys a sports car, or has a second cup of coffee after dinner.  Even crowd dynamics can be altered by incredibly subtle, and unpredictable, circumstances.  (Someone in a crowded line says "He's got hairy wrists", someone else hears "He's a terrorist", and soon 8 are trampled to death in the ensuing panic.)<br>
<br>
Then, add people deliberately gaming the system into the equation. (i.e. someone else wants to steer the crowd in a different direction than your model would normally predict, perhaps even using your model to predict the best way to disrupt it.)<br>
<br>
Raw computing power just can't compensate for all the variables.  At some point of hyper-precision, they become recursive anyway, and G&#246;del gets to have posthumous a laugh at your expense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between mapping rules in a general fashion , and applying them to actual situations .
Invariably , reality always has elements that differ from the model , and thereby make it inaccurate .
This is why reductionism does n't generally map back accurately to the big picture .
Understanding a component is different from understanding how the component integrates into the whole , and how other components within the whole interact with , and alter , the component .
Human behavior is very nearly impossible to accurately model at the individual level .
You hear " I never would have expected him to do that " when people speak about their next door neighbors who go on homicidal rampages .
Husbands or wives are shocked when the spouse that they 've lived with for years or decades has an affair , buys a sports car , or has a second cup of coffee after dinner .
Even crowd dynamics can be altered by incredibly subtle , and unpredictable , circumstances .
( Someone in a crowded line says " He 's got hairy wrists " , someone else hears " He 's a terrorist " , and soon 8 are trampled to death in the ensuing panic .
) Then , add people deliberately gaming the system into the equation .
( i.e. someone else wants to steer the crowd in a different direction than your model would normally predict , perhaps even using your model to predict the best way to disrupt it .
) Raw computing power just ca n't compensate for all the variables .
At some point of hyper-precision , they become recursive anyway , and G   del gets to have posthumous a laugh at your expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between mapping rules in a general fashion, and applying them to actual situations.
Invariably, reality always has elements that differ from the model, and thereby make it inaccurate.
This is why reductionism doesn't generally map back accurately to the big picture.
Understanding a component is different from understanding how the component integrates into the whole, and how other components within the whole interact with, and alter, the component.
Human behavior is very nearly impossible to accurately model at the individual level.
You hear "I never would have expected him to do that" when people speak about their next door neighbors who go on homicidal rampages.
Husbands or wives are shocked when the spouse that they've lived with for years or decades has an affair, buys a sports car, or has a second cup of coffee after dinner.
Even crowd dynamics can be altered by incredibly subtle, and unpredictable, circumstances.
(Someone in a crowded line says "He's got hairy wrists", someone else hears "He's a terrorist", and soon 8 are trampled to death in the ensuing panic.
)

Then, add people deliberately gaming the system into the equation.
(i.e. someone else wants to steer the crowd in a different direction than your model would normally predict, perhaps even using your model to predict the best way to disrupt it.
)

Raw computing power just can't compensate for all the variables.
At some point of hyper-precision, they become recursive anyway, and Gödel gets to have posthumous a laugh at your expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28216227</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244116560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, duh.</p><p>Because computers simply implement basic logic, rigorously; they can't do anything basic logic can't do.</p><p>OTOH, "common sense" is mostly just what people use to describe their own unexamined prejudices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Well , duh.Because computers simply implement basic logic , rigorously ; they ca n't do anything basic logic ca n't do.OTOH , " common sense " is mostly just what people use to describe their own unexamined prejudices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Well, duh.Because computers simply implement basic logic, rigorously; they can't do anything basic logic can't do.OTOH, "common sense" is mostly just what people use to describe their own unexamined prejudices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198315</id>
	<title>A hydraulic computer did model the economy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... in Terry Pratchett's book Making Money.  There was such a computer in the basement of the bank in Ankh-Morpork.
<br> <br>
I wonder if Terry knew about the one in TFA.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making\_Money" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Making Money</a> [wikipedia.org] wiki article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in Terry Pratchett 's book Making Money .
There was such a computer in the basement of the bank in Ankh-Morpork .
I wonder if Terry knew about the one in TFA .
Making Money [ wikipedia.org ] wiki article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in Terry Pratchett's book Making Money.
There was such a computer in the basement of the bank in Ankh-Morpork.
I wonder if Terry knew about the one in TFA.
Making Money [wikipedia.org] wiki article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207645</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>kinnell</author>
	<datestamp>1244120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics, genetics, and chemistry?</p><p>If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.</p><p>You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.</p></div><p>Models are by their nature simplifications of a real system.  The point is that some problems can't be simplified because there are no variables which are trivial enough that you can remove them and still get reasonably accurate results.  While you may in theory be able to accurately predict a stock price, for example, by modelling every neuron in every brain of every stockbroker in the world, what would be the point?  If the model ends up taking longer to run than the system it's modelling, there is no point in having a model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics , genetics , and chemistry ? If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it , then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.Models are by their nature simplifications of a real system .
The point is that some problems ca n't be simplified because there are no variables which are trivial enough that you can remove them and still get reasonably accurate results .
While you may in theory be able to accurately predict a stock price , for example , by modelling every neuron in every brain of every stockbroker in the world , what would be the point ?
If the model ends up taking longer to run than the system it 's modelling , there is no point in having a model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics, genetics, and chemistry?If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.Models are by their nature simplifications of a real system.
The point is that some problems can't be simplified because there are no variables which are trivial enough that you can remove them and still get reasonably accurate results.
While you may in theory be able to accurately predict a stock price, for example, by modelling every neuron in every brain of every stockbroker in the world, what would be the point?
If the model ends up taking longer to run than the system it's modelling, there is no point in having a model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198463</id>
	<title>If we would have stayed with this technology...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1244054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the Internet truly would be a series of tubes.</p><p>Also, little known fact: Gordon Moore's father was a mechanical engineer who predicted that the size of hydraulic valves would shrink 50\% every 18 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the Internet truly would be a series of tubes.Also , little known fact : Gordon Moore 's father was a mechanical engineer who predicted that the size of hydraulic valves would shrink 50 \ % every 18 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the Internet truly would be a series of tubes.Also, little known fact: Gordon Moore's father was a mechanical engineer who predicted that the size of hydraulic valves would shrink 50\% every 18 months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28206021</id>
	<title>horrible video</title>
	<author>Teque5</author>
	<datestamp>1244054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>'cool video' is really a misnomer - the guy doesn't explain anything and nothing happens.  3:28 of my life i will never get back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'cool video ' is really a misnomer - the guy does n't explain anything and nothing happens .
3 : 28 of my life i will never get back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'cool video' is really a misnomer - the guy doesn't explain anything and nothing happens.
3:28 of my life i will never get back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200273</id>
	<title>obvious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>now i truly understand a buffer overflow, and the implications of a memory leak are clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>now i truly understand a buffer overflow , and the implications of a memory leak are clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now i truly understand a buffer overflow, and the implications of a memory leak are clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199993</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>reverseengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1244061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I think is interesting about the hydraulic Phillips computer though is that its workings are straightforward enough to act as an aid to common sense and basic logic.  An issue with using modern digital computers in economic models is that it becomes very difficult to just follow the money around.  You don't get the notion that you're looking at an unsustainable bubble, because the inputs and outputs in your model are obscured by mathematical abstraction.  In particular, it becomes easy to lose sight of the interconnections among companies or economic sectors.
<br> <br>
A hydraulic system however has the advantage that a tangible working fluid connects all the areas in your economic model.  The idea of "Too Interconnected to Fail" really stands out in a physical model versus a computer program.  Say you're AIG.  It's one thing to create a model that calculates how much collateral you would have deposit with counterparties in credit default swaps should your credit rating fall.  It's another to have the executives stand there and watch as a reservoir full of water that represents your company's cash on hand is sucked dry and the pumps continue to grind in demand for more water.  However, in both cases, you still have to be able to admit the possibility that your credit rating even <i>could</i> fall.
<br> <br>
"An engineer uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost- more for support than for illumination."  I think that applies just as well to economists and financiers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think is interesting about the hydraulic Phillips computer though is that its workings are straightforward enough to act as an aid to common sense and basic logic .
An issue with using modern digital computers in economic models is that it becomes very difficult to just follow the money around .
You do n't get the notion that you 're looking at an unsustainable bubble , because the inputs and outputs in your model are obscured by mathematical abstraction .
In particular , it becomes easy to lose sight of the interconnections among companies or economic sectors .
A hydraulic system however has the advantage that a tangible working fluid connects all the areas in your economic model .
The idea of " Too Interconnected to Fail " really stands out in a physical model versus a computer program .
Say you 're AIG .
It 's one thing to create a model that calculates how much collateral you would have deposit with counterparties in credit default swaps should your credit rating fall .
It 's another to have the executives stand there and watch as a reservoir full of water that represents your company 's cash on hand is sucked dry and the pumps continue to grind in demand for more water .
However , in both cases , you still have to be able to admit the possibility that your credit rating even could fall .
" An engineer uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost- more for support than for illumination .
" I think that applies just as well to economists and financiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think is interesting about the hydraulic Phillips computer though is that its workings are straightforward enough to act as an aid to common sense and basic logic.
An issue with using modern digital computers in economic models is that it becomes very difficult to just follow the money around.
You don't get the notion that you're looking at an unsustainable bubble, because the inputs and outputs in your model are obscured by mathematical abstraction.
In particular, it becomes easy to lose sight of the interconnections among companies or economic sectors.
A hydraulic system however has the advantage that a tangible working fluid connects all the areas in your economic model.
The idea of "Too Interconnected to Fail" really stands out in a physical model versus a computer program.
Say you're AIG.
It's one thing to create a model that calculates how much collateral you would have deposit with counterparties in credit default swaps should your credit rating fall.
It's another to have the executives stand there and watch as a reservoir full of water that represents your company's cash on hand is sucked dry and the pumps continue to grind in demand for more water.
However, in both cases, you still have to be able to admit the possibility that your credit rating even could fall.
"An engineer uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost- more for support than for illumination.
"  I think that applies just as well to economists and financiers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200085</id>
	<title>Hydraulic Analog Computer ....</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1244062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were organic, i'd dare say it could be called a.... hip-shooter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were organic , i 'd dare say it could be called a.... hip-shooter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were organic, i'd dare say it could be called a.... hip-shooter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200339</id>
	<title>Analog computing has its place</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1244020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Often, digital computing is clumsy, awkward, and overly precise.</p><p>A good example of this is in Aviation. Pilots are still trained to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B" title="wikipedia.org">use the E6B Flight computer</a> [wikipedia.org] which is really a glorified slide rule.</p><p>When you are estimating fuel consumption, and figure you'll probably use about 11.5 GPH for 3 1/3 hours, it's not important to know any more accuracy than perhaps to a gallon or so, since reality will always be a bit different than your calculations, anyway. You don't need to be exactly precise on your degrees of heading, and when you are computing weight &amp; balance, it's stupid to calculate your moment to the 4th decimal place.</p><p>Knowing how to use an E6B, you can get calculations in a second or two with a single hand that are "good enough" - and that's important when you're flying an airplane in turbulence while trying to stay on top of busy ATC calls in a heavily trafficked area. You can't even enter the first of 3 or 4 digits into a digital calculator in that time, and you'd have to use two hands. (Frequently, when flying, your hands are both occupied and you're steering with just your feet)</p><p>Digital isn't always better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often , digital computing is clumsy , awkward , and overly precise.A good example of this is in Aviation .
Pilots are still trained to use the E6B Flight computer [ wikipedia.org ] which is really a glorified slide rule.When you are estimating fuel consumption , and figure you 'll probably use about 11.5 GPH for 3 1/3 hours , it 's not important to know any more accuracy than perhaps to a gallon or so , since reality will always be a bit different than your calculations , anyway .
You do n't need to be exactly precise on your degrees of heading , and when you are computing weight &amp; balance , it 's stupid to calculate your moment to the 4th decimal place.Knowing how to use an E6B , you can get calculations in a second or two with a single hand that are " good enough " - and that 's important when you 're flying an airplane in turbulence while trying to stay on top of busy ATC calls in a heavily trafficked area .
You ca n't even enter the first of 3 or 4 digits into a digital calculator in that time , and you 'd have to use two hands .
( Frequently , when flying , your hands are both occupied and you 're steering with just your feet ) Digital is n't always better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often, digital computing is clumsy, awkward, and overly precise.A good example of this is in Aviation.
Pilots are still trained to use the E6B Flight computer [wikipedia.org] which is really a glorified slide rule.When you are estimating fuel consumption, and figure you'll probably use about 11.5 GPH for 3 1/3 hours, it's not important to know any more accuracy than perhaps to a gallon or so, since reality will always be a bit different than your calculations, anyway.
You don't need to be exactly precise on your degrees of heading, and when you are computing weight &amp; balance, it's stupid to calculate your moment to the 4th decimal place.Knowing how to use an E6B, you can get calculations in a second or two with a single hand that are "good enough" - and that's important when you're flying an airplane in turbulence while trying to stay on top of busy ATC calls in a heavily trafficked area.
You can't even enter the first of 3 or 4 digits into a digital calculator in that time, and you'd have to use two hands.
(Frequently, when flying, your hands are both occupied and you're steering with just your feet)Digital isn't always better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28212463</id>
	<title>Re:pneumatic computers exist too</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244142240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.</i><br>Sounds like you just need to have some buffers in the design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.Sounds like you just need to have some buffers in the design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.Sounds like you just need to have some buffers in the design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</id>
	<title>Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.  It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all.  This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst.  Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers.  People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed.  Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can .
It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply , you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk , and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on , or none at all .
This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble , and all bubbles burst .
Many people saw this coming years , even decades ago , and did n't have supercomputers .
People understood this scenario centuries ago , before computers even existed .
Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario , not the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.
It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all.
This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst.
Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers.
People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed.
Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199151</id>
	<title>Sure we could have used it to predict it</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But given its speed, the result would have been available by 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But given its speed , the result would have been available by 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But given its speed, the result would have been available by 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198293</id>
	<title>Hanz and Franz...</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1244053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are here to *Pump* you up!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>are here to * Pump * you up !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are here to *Pump* you up!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199823</id>
	<title>Zero, it's Jonathan E</title>
	<author>RoverDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1244061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Answer the question Zero, tell Jonathan about the Corporate Wars.
<br>*blub blub blub 13th Century blub blub*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer the question Zero , tell Jonathan about the Corporate Wars .
* blub blub blub 13th Century blub blub *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer the question Zero, tell Jonathan about the Corporate Wars.
*blub blub blub 13th Century blub blub*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28209383</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between modeling to accurately predict something and in modeling to understand the underlying structure and thus the likely behavior of the system under certain conditions. Because the economy is subject to a large amount of "noise", it is next to impossible to make accurate numerical predictions of what a variable, such as GDP, is going to be at a certain point in time. This is why we can not predict when trends in the economy change. Most predictive models use statistically derived linear models that only offer some accuracy in predicting variations around the current trend. This is fine as long as the trend does not change. However, when the dominant structure of the system changes, those models become next to useless. This is why we could not predict when the current financial crisis was going to occur. What was possible though, is to predict that it would occur at some future point in time. There are models that are able to do this, also for macroeconomics. Phenomena such as the long wave, a sixty year cycle in the economy, was understood using computer simulation System Dynamics (SD) models. SD uses the feedback principle, just the same as the computer featured in the article, except of course that it is now digital. A Russian economist, Kondriatev, discovered discovered the long wave using historical data in the 1930s, however, understanding it took computer simulation. The simulation can predict cycles and that there will be changes, but not exactly when. Interested slashdoters may take a look at Business Dynamics, written by John Sterman and published by Irwin McGraw-Hill.</p><p>Modeling to predict a specific numerical value of a variable at a specific point in time, is pointless. What must be done is to understand the structure of the system that causes major changes in trends, for example business cycles, to occurr. When we understand the structure that causes the problem, we can change the structure. Eliminating the need to point predict specific variables.</p><p>Now, why are we not able to fix the problems in the economy given that we have modeling methodologies that are capable? In my mind there are two answers: 1) Most decisionmakers, if they use models at all, rely upon inadequate linear statistical models. They are easier to understand as they are usually equilibrium based, and can therefore be simplified to a point where an analytical solution is possible. It is common practice to "fudge factor" these models to make them fit the data. Fudge factoring is the addition of extra variables or scalars not present in the real system, simply to make the model conform to expectations. 2) The decisionmakers do not understand the models they are using and thus does not believe in them. Even if they were using a truly useful model, their lack of trust in it means that they would disregard its advice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between modeling to accurately predict something and in modeling to understand the underlying structure and thus the likely behavior of the system under certain conditions .
Because the economy is subject to a large amount of " noise " , it is next to impossible to make accurate numerical predictions of what a variable , such as GDP , is going to be at a certain point in time .
This is why we can not predict when trends in the economy change .
Most predictive models use statistically derived linear models that only offer some accuracy in predicting variations around the current trend .
This is fine as long as the trend does not change .
However , when the dominant structure of the system changes , those models become next to useless .
This is why we could not predict when the current financial crisis was going to occur .
What was possible though , is to predict that it would occur at some future point in time .
There are models that are able to do this , also for macroeconomics .
Phenomena such as the long wave , a sixty year cycle in the economy , was understood using computer simulation System Dynamics ( SD ) models .
SD uses the feedback principle , just the same as the computer featured in the article , except of course that it is now digital .
A Russian economist , Kondriatev , discovered discovered the long wave using historical data in the 1930s , however , understanding it took computer simulation .
The simulation can predict cycles and that there will be changes , but not exactly when .
Interested slashdoters may take a look at Business Dynamics , written by John Sterman and published by Irwin McGraw-Hill.Modeling to predict a specific numerical value of a variable at a specific point in time , is pointless .
What must be done is to understand the structure of the system that causes major changes in trends , for example business cycles , to occurr .
When we understand the structure that causes the problem , we can change the structure .
Eliminating the need to point predict specific variables.Now , why are we not able to fix the problems in the economy given that we have modeling methodologies that are capable ?
In my mind there are two answers : 1 ) Most decisionmakers , if they use models at all , rely upon inadequate linear statistical models .
They are easier to understand as they are usually equilibrium based , and can therefore be simplified to a point where an analytical solution is possible .
It is common practice to " fudge factor " these models to make them fit the data .
Fudge factoring is the addition of extra variables or scalars not present in the real system , simply to make the model conform to expectations .
2 ) The decisionmakers do not understand the models they are using and thus does not believe in them .
Even if they were using a truly useful model , their lack of trust in it means that they would disregard its advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between modeling to accurately predict something and in modeling to understand the underlying structure and thus the likely behavior of the system under certain conditions.
Because the economy is subject to a large amount of "noise", it is next to impossible to make accurate numerical predictions of what a variable, such as GDP, is going to be at a certain point in time.
This is why we can not predict when trends in the economy change.
Most predictive models use statistically derived linear models that only offer some accuracy in predicting variations around the current trend.
This is fine as long as the trend does not change.
However, when the dominant structure of the system changes, those models become next to useless.
This is why we could not predict when the current financial crisis was going to occur.
What was possible though, is to predict that it would occur at some future point in time.
There are models that are able to do this, also for macroeconomics.
Phenomena such as the long wave, a sixty year cycle in the economy, was understood using computer simulation System Dynamics (SD) models.
SD uses the feedback principle, just the same as the computer featured in the article, except of course that it is now digital.
A Russian economist, Kondriatev, discovered discovered the long wave using historical data in the 1930s, however, understanding it took computer simulation.
The simulation can predict cycles and that there will be changes, but not exactly when.
Interested slashdoters may take a look at Business Dynamics, written by John Sterman and published by Irwin McGraw-Hill.Modeling to predict a specific numerical value of a variable at a specific point in time, is pointless.
What must be done is to understand the structure of the system that causes major changes in trends, for example business cycles, to occurr.
When we understand the structure that causes the problem, we can change the structure.
Eliminating the need to point predict specific variables.Now, why are we not able to fix the problems in the economy given that we have modeling methodologies that are capable?
In my mind there are two answers: 1) Most decisionmakers, if they use models at all, rely upon inadequate linear statistical models.
They are easier to understand as they are usually equilibrium based, and can therefore be simplified to a point where an analytical solution is possible.
It is common practice to "fudge factor" these models to make them fit the data.
Fudge factoring is the addition of extra variables or scalars not present in the real system, simply to make the model conform to expectations.
2) The decisionmakers do not understand the models they are using and thus does not believe in them.
Even if they were using a truly useful model, their lack of trust in it means that they would disregard its advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207317</id>
	<title>The original is in the London Science Museum</title>
	<author>entirely\_fluffy</author>
	<datestamp>1244116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The computer in the article installed at the LSE is now on display in the London Science Museum:
<p>
<a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I033/10303308.aspx" title="sciencemuseum.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I033/10303308.aspx</a> [sciencemuseum.org.uk]
</p><p>
Phillip's Economic Computer, 1949.

The machine was conceived by Bill Phillips (1914-1975), a New Zealand-born engineer turned economist. Phillips designed the machine to demonstrate in a visual way the circular flow of money within the economy. Approximately fourteen machines were built, and this particular machine was used as a teaching aid at the London School of Economics. It ran until May 1992.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The computer in the article installed at the LSE is now on display in the London Science Museum : http : //www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I033/10303308.aspx [ sciencemuseum.org.uk ] Phillip 's Economic Computer , 1949 .
The machine was conceived by Bill Phillips ( 1914-1975 ) , a New Zealand-born engineer turned economist .
Phillips designed the machine to demonstrate in a visual way the circular flow of money within the economy .
Approximately fourteen machines were built , and this particular machine was used as a teaching aid at the London School of Economics .
It ran until May 1992 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The computer in the article installed at the LSE is now on display in the London Science Museum:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I033/10303308.aspx [sciencemuseum.org.uk]

Phillip's Economic Computer, 1949.
The machine was conceived by Bill Phillips (1914-1975), a New Zealand-born engineer turned economist.
Phillips designed the machine to demonstrate in a visual way the circular flow of money within the economy.
Approximately fourteen machines were built, and this particular machine was used as a teaching aid at the London School of Economics.
It ran until May 1992.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198337</id>
	<title>Discworld anyone!</title>
	<author>DadLeopard</author>
	<datestamp>1244054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems Terry Pratchett is ahead of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. on this issue as one of his characters in "Making Money" uses just this type of Analog Computer to model the money flow in the novel! Though since magic doesn't work in this universe, ours' don't have the same effect!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems Terry Pratchett is ahead of / .
on this issue as one of his characters in " Making Money " uses just this type of Analog Computer to model the money flow in the novel !
Though since magic does n't work in this universe , ours ' do n't have the same effect !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems Terry Pratchett is ahead of /.
on this issue as one of his characters in "Making Money" uses just this type of Analog Computer to model the money flow in the novel!
Though since magic doesn't work in this universe, ours' don't have the same effect!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199917</id>
	<title>Re:Gack... troll in summary... must resist...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1244061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions. Not a good recipe for prevention.</p></div><p>Even those people, in reality, had no ability to stop it.</p><p>In fact, I know a mortgage broker that had his own company. He wouldn't lend to people that didn't have a job, source of income, or the independent wealth to cover the loan. He refused to get caught up in the "loan money to anyone that has a pulse" frenzy and required proof beyond stated income (like paystubs and W2's) to show that you could make the payments. They started a class action suit alleging discrimination and the legal costs bankrupted him.</p><p>The whole problem was caused when congress passed a bill removing the regulations which kept FDIC insured banks from buying loans from non-FDIC insured banks, effectively removing the rules under which FDIC insured banks could loan money.</p><p>If you "did the right thing" you went out of business all together, thanks to class action lawsuits. This one is entirely Washington DC's fault, not the mortgage brokers. The guy is a good friend of mine and incredibly smart. He explained exactly how it happened and my own research confirmed what he was telling me. Congress dropped the ball on this one. They wanted everyone to be able to buy a house, whether or not they could pay for it.</p><p>-Viz</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions .
Not a good recipe for prevention.Even those people , in reality , had no ability to stop it.In fact , I know a mortgage broker that had his own company .
He would n't lend to people that did n't have a job , source of income , or the independent wealth to cover the loan .
He refused to get caught up in the " loan money to anyone that has a pulse " frenzy and required proof beyond stated income ( like paystubs and W2 's ) to show that you could make the payments .
They started a class action suit alleging discrimination and the legal costs bankrupted him.The whole problem was caused when congress passed a bill removing the regulations which kept FDIC insured banks from buying loans from non-FDIC insured banks , effectively removing the rules under which FDIC insured banks could loan money.If you " did the right thing " you went out of business all together , thanks to class action lawsuits .
This one is entirely Washington DC 's fault , not the mortgage brokers .
The guy is a good friend of mine and incredibly smart .
He explained exactly how it happened and my own research confirmed what he was telling me .
Congress dropped the ball on this one .
They wanted everyone to be able to buy a house , whether or not they could pay for it.-Viz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions.
Not a good recipe for prevention.Even those people, in reality, had no ability to stop it.In fact, I know a mortgage broker that had his own company.
He wouldn't lend to people that didn't have a job, source of income, or the independent wealth to cover the loan.
He refused to get caught up in the "loan money to anyone that has a pulse" frenzy and required proof beyond stated income (like paystubs and W2's) to show that you could make the payments.
They started a class action suit alleging discrimination and the legal costs bankrupted him.The whole problem was caused when congress passed a bill removing the regulations which kept FDIC insured banks from buying loans from non-FDIC insured banks, effectively removing the rules under which FDIC insured banks could loan money.If you "did the right thing" you went out of business all together, thanks to class action lawsuits.
This one is entirely Washington DC's fault, not the mortgage brokers.
The guy is a good friend of mine and incredibly smart.
He explained exactly how it happened and my own research confirmed what he was telling me.
Congress dropped the ball on this one.
They wanted everyone to be able to buy a house, whether or not they could pay for it.-Viz
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198849</id>
	<title>I think simple addition and subtraction</title>
	<author>Xonstantine</author>
	<datestamp>1244056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was all that was necessary to predict our current economic crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was all that was necessary to predict our current economic crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was all that was necessary to predict our current economic crisis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200309</id>
	<title>biennale</title>
	<author>spud603</author>
	<datestamp>1244019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw one of these in operation at the Venice Biennale in 2003. It was really remarkable to watch, but then I was thinking of it as more of an art project pointing out the absurd nature of economic forecasting than a serious research tool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw one of these in operation at the Venice Biennale in 2003 .
It was really remarkable to watch , but then I was thinking of it as more of an art project pointing out the absurd nature of economic forecasting than a serious research tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw one of these in operation at the Venice Biennale in 2003.
It was really remarkable to watch, but then I was thinking of it as more of an art project pointing out the absurd nature of economic forecasting than a serious research tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207643</id>
	<title>It's been done in Phun</title>
	<author>bomek</author>
	<datestamp>1244120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been done in Phun, a physic 2D sandbox</p><p><a href="http://www.phunland.com/phunbox/details/22598" title="phunland.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.phunland.com/phunbox/details/22598</a> [phunland.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been done in Phun , a physic 2D sandboxhttp : //www.phunland.com/phunbox/details/22598 [ phunland.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been done in Phun, a physic 2D sandboxhttp://www.phunland.com/phunbox/details/22598 [phunland.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199051</id>
	<title>Re:pneumatic computers exist too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely. which is useful when you have many layers of "logic gates" that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes. with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.</p></div><p>They used to call this tab-out. That's where fan-out comes from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely .
which is useful when you have many layers of " logic gates " that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes .
with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.They used to call this tab-out .
That 's where fan-out comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely.
which is useful when you have many layers of "logic gates" that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes.
with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.They used to call this tab-out.
That's where fan-out comes from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200321</id>
	<title>If these ran the internetz. . .</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1244020080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these did run teh internetz, then the Internet really WOULD be a series of tubes!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these did run teh internetz , then the Internet really WOULD be a series of tubes !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these did run teh internetz, then the Internet really WOULD be a series of tubes!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28206435</id>
	<title>I want one</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a cool gadget to have in your living room; described by Terry Pratchett in "Making money" as the Glooper.</p><p>"Igor?" said Moist, "You have an Igor?"<br>"Oh, yes", said Hubert. "That's how I get this wonderful light. They know the secret of storing lightning in jars! But don't let that worry you, Mr Lipspick. Just because I'm employing an Igor and working in a cellar doesn't mean I'm some sort of madman, ha ha ha!"<br>"Ha ha," agreed Moist.<br>"Ha hah hah!," said Hubert, "Hahahahahaha!! Ahahahahahahhhhh!!!!!-"<br>Bent slapped him on the back. Hubert coughed. "Sorry about that, it's the air down here", he mumbled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a cool gadget to have in your living room ; described by Terry Pratchett in " Making money " as the Glooper. " Igor ?
" said Moist , " You have an Igor ?
" " Oh , yes " , said Hubert .
" That 's how I get this wonderful light .
They know the secret of storing lightning in jars !
But do n't let that worry you , Mr Lipspick .
Just because I 'm employing an Igor and working in a cellar does n't mean I 'm some sort of madman , ha ha ha !
" " Ha ha , " agreed Moist .
" Ha hah hah ! , " said Hubert , " Hahahahahaha ! !
Ahahahahahahhhhh ! ! ! ! ! - " Bent slapped him on the back .
Hubert coughed .
" Sorry about that , it 's the air down here " , he mumbled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a cool gadget to have in your living room; described by Terry Pratchett in "Making money" as the Glooper."Igor?
" said Moist, "You have an Igor?
""Oh, yes", said Hubert.
"That's how I get this wonderful light.
They know the secret of storing lightning in jars!
But don't let that worry you, Mr Lipspick.
Just because I'm employing an Igor and working in a cellar doesn't mean I'm some sort of madman, ha ha ha!
""Ha ha," agreed Moist.
"Ha hah hah!," said Hubert, "Hahahahahaha!!
Ahahahahahahhhhh!!!!!-"Bent slapped him on the back.
Hubert coughed.
"Sorry about that, it's the air down here", he mumbled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205049</id>
	<title>Re:Used in fighter planes</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1244043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about helicopters, but older car automatic transmissions used circulating transmission fluid to determine what gear the car should be in, when the shifts should happen.  I think that qualifies as a hydraulic computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about helicopters , but older car automatic transmissions used circulating transmission fluid to determine what gear the car should be in , when the shifts should happen .
I think that qualifies as a hydraulic computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about helicopters, but older car automatic transmissions used circulating transmission fluid to determine what gear the car should be in, when the shifts should happen.
I think that qualifies as a hydraulic computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204965</id>
	<title>Re:Analog computing has its place</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1244042340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow does this bring back memories. I learned to fly in grad school in 1984 and learned to use the E6B. I may still have it, even though I no longer fly. Each time I move I consider tossing the item, but can't for sentimental reasons. Amazing they are still in use, not replaced by electronics, but I understand now having read your post and the Wikipedia article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow does this bring back memories .
I learned to fly in grad school in 1984 and learned to use the E6B .
I may still have it , even though I no longer fly .
Each time I move I consider tossing the item , but ca n't for sentimental reasons .
Amazing they are still in use , not replaced by electronics , but I understand now having read your post and the Wikipedia article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow does this bring back memories.
I learned to fly in grad school in 1984 and learned to use the E6B.
I may still have it, even though I no longer fly.
Each time I move I consider tossing the item, but can't for sentimental reasons.
Amazing they are still in use, not replaced by electronics, but I understand now having read your post and the Wikipedia article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198405</id>
	<title>The Real Question</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1244054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I duplicate this in Dwarf Fortress?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I duplicate this in Dwarf Fortress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I duplicate this in Dwarf Fortress?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on.  I saw this mechanical computer on TV years ago, they were talking about how it was a noble attempt to model the economy but it's just too complicated an organism to be modelled by any means, to say nothing of a mechanical device.  Sometimes the economy reacts differently when you poke it the same way depending on a myriad of other factors.</p><p>Another example is traffic.  Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes.  "Road is congested?  Make it wider and the congestion will ease."  What they don't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.  They can be aware of a widening of the pipes/roads and choose to go into a system at a certain point at a certain time to take advantage of the widened road, with the net result of a road that's just as congested at 4 lanes wide as it was at 3 lanes wide.  There's also the matter of being able to move one's home to a different location along the road to avoid congestion.  Others follow suit, and the congestion is back to where it was.  Want to model that using water in pipes?  Good luck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on .
I saw this mechanical computer on TV years ago , they were talking about how it was a noble attempt to model the economy but it 's just too complicated an organism to be modelled by any means , to say nothing of a mechanical device .
Sometimes the economy reacts differently when you poke it the same way depending on a myriad of other factors.Another example is traffic .
Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes .
" Road is congested ?
Make it wider and the congestion will ease .
" What they do n't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles .
They can be aware of a widening of the pipes/roads and choose to go into a system at a certain point at a certain time to take advantage of the widened road , with the net result of a road that 's just as congested at 4 lanes wide as it was at 3 lanes wide .
There 's also the matter of being able to move one 's home to a different location along the road to avoid congestion .
Others follow suit , and the congestion is back to where it was .
Want to model that using water in pipes ?
Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on.
I saw this mechanical computer on TV years ago, they were talking about how it was a noble attempt to model the economy but it's just too complicated an organism to be modelled by any means, to say nothing of a mechanical device.
Sometimes the economy reacts differently when you poke it the same way depending on a myriad of other factors.Another example is traffic.
Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes.
"Road is congested?
Make it wider and the congestion will ease.
"  What they don't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.
They can be aware of a widening of the pipes/roads and choose to go into a system at a certain point at a certain time to take advantage of the widened road, with the net result of a road that's just as congested at 4 lanes wide as it was at 3 lanes wide.
There's also the matter of being able to move one's home to a different location along the road to avoid congestion.
Others follow suit, and the congestion is back to where it was.
Want to model that using water in pipes?
Good luck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201545</id>
	<title>Fluidic Systems</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1244024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a fan of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics" title="wikipedia.org">Fluidics</a> [wikipedia.org], which can create analog or digital devices based on fluid flow.</p><p>See <a href="http://cba.mit.edu/events/07.05.fluid/BFC.ppt" title="mit.edu">this powerpoint</a> [mit.edu] for a great history of fluidics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a fan of Fluidics [ wikipedia.org ] , which can create analog or digital devices based on fluid flow.See this powerpoint [ mit.edu ] for a great history of fluidics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a fan of Fluidics [wikipedia.org], which can create analog or digital devices based on fluid flow.See this powerpoint [mit.edu] for a great history of fluidics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198151</id>
	<title>Perhaps it used the wrong working fluid</title>
	<author>OolimPhon</author>
	<datestamp>1244053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might have been more successful if they had used beer instead of water...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might have been more successful if they had used beer instead of water.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might have been more successful if they had used beer instead of water...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198947</id>
	<title>Re:pneumatic computers exist too</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In pneumatics you can use "pilot valves" to amplify your digital signals back up to full strength.  I needed some fairly strong pneumatic (signals) to switch fairly quickly, the only valves on the market that would do it used pilots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In pneumatics you can use " pilot valves " to amplify your digital signals back up to full strength .
I needed some fairly strong pneumatic ( signals ) to switch fairly quickly , the only valves on the market that would do it used pilots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In pneumatics you can use "pilot valves" to amplify your digital signals back up to full strength.
I needed some fairly strong pneumatic (signals) to switch fairly quickly, the only valves on the market that would do it used pilots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28206117</id>
	<title>The linked movie seemed to be applicable, still...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1244056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A seemingly intelligent fellow, explaining how it should work - while it never actually did work.  Just like listening to Paulson, or Geitner, or...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A seemingly intelligent fellow , explaining how it should work - while it never actually did work .
Just like listening to Paulson , or Geitner , or.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A seemingly intelligent fellow, explaining how it should work - while it never actually did work.
Just like listening to Paulson, or Geitner, or...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199071</id>
	<title>Re:Explosives factories</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, when it comes to anything safety crtical KISS is a good principle to follow as it will make it much easier to ensure safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , when it comes to anything safety crtical KISS is a good principle to follow as it will make it much easier to ensure safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, when it comes to anything safety crtical KISS is a good principle to follow as it will make it much easier to ensure safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198263</id>
	<title>Blowing a circuit - with air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In college I built a divide-by-eight counter in pneumatics. One reciprocating cylinder was the "clock" signal, the rest was a bunch of pneumatic shuttle valves. Problems arose because I kept needing to increase the air pressure to move some of the switches because they were spring-loaded. The air hoses started to pop off their fasteners so it took a lot longer to get the assembly working that I had anticipated (talk about blowing a circuit). It did manage to get me an exemption from the rest of the labs though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In college I built a divide-by-eight counter in pneumatics .
One reciprocating cylinder was the " clock " signal , the rest was a bunch of pneumatic shuttle valves .
Problems arose because I kept needing to increase the air pressure to move some of the switches because they were spring-loaded .
The air hoses started to pop off their fasteners so it took a lot longer to get the assembly working that I had anticipated ( talk about blowing a circuit ) .
It did manage to get me an exemption from the rest of the labs though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In college I built a divide-by-eight counter in pneumatics.
One reciprocating cylinder was the "clock" signal, the rest was a bunch of pneumatic shuttle valves.
Problems arose because I kept needing to increase the air pressure to move some of the switches because they were spring-loaded.
The air hoses started to pop off their fasteners so it took a lot longer to get the assembly working that I had anticipated (talk about blowing a circuit).
It did manage to get me an exemption from the rest of the labs though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207171</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1244114340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.</p></div><p>Why? The rest of your post explains why it was obvious the bubble would burst. But while common sense could tell us that it definitely would burst, it was not so good with the question of when. Many commentators confidently predicted the end of the bubble for years while the economy surged higher on a diet of credit and fairy gold.</p><p>So why do you think that we can't derive models more accurate at prediction than common sense?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Why ?
The rest of your post explains why it was obvious the bubble would burst .
But while common sense could tell us that it definitely would burst , it was not so good with the question of when .
Many commentators confidently predicted the end of the bubble for years while the economy surged higher on a diet of credit and fairy gold.So why do you think that we ca n't derive models more accurate at prediction than common sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Why?
The rest of your post explains why it was obvious the bubble would burst.
But while common sense could tell us that it definitely would burst, it was not so good with the question of when.
Many commentators confidently predicted the end of the bubble for years while the economy surged higher on a diet of credit and fairy gold.So why do you think that we can't derive models more accurate at prediction than common sense?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198181</id>
	<title>Gack... troll in summary... must resist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dammit.  Couldn't resist.<blockquote><div><p>Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you don't have to wonder that.  The current economic difficulties were easily predicted by many.<br> <br>The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions.  Not a good recipe for prevention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit .
Could n't resist.Of course , you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties.No , you do n't have to wonder that .
The current economic difficulties were easily predicted by many .
The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions .
Not a good recipe for prevention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit.
Couldn't resist.Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties.No, you don't have to wonder that.
The current economic difficulties were easily predicted by many.
The problem was that the people with any kind of ability to stop the conditions that led to the current situation were those who profited most from those conditions.
Not a good recipe for prevention.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198511</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>caffeinemessiah</author>
	<datestamp>1244054820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can</p></div><p>
It might not be an accurate <i>descriptive</i> model (one that describes reality), but <i>discriminative</i> models are very useful -- not to predict systematic collapses, but to discriminate irrational behavior. Computers step in when your response time has to beat efficient markets. You could be a common sense and logic genius, but you can only apply those rules and react in so much time, and computers will <b>always</b> beat you for speed at applying your own rules. So it's a different kind of crutch, and just like a crutch, it can help you walk better, not walk for you.
</p><p>
I might have digressed from TFA, but this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can It might not be an accurate descriptive model ( one that describes reality ) , but discriminative models are very useful -- not to predict systematic collapses , but to discriminate irrational behavior .
Computers step in when your response time has to beat efficient markets .
You could be a common sense and logic genius , but you can only apply those rules and react in so much time , and computers will always beat you for speed at applying your own rules .
So it 's a different kind of crutch , and just like a crutch , it can help you walk better , not walk for you .
I might have digressed from TFA , but this is / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can
It might not be an accurate descriptive model (one that describes reality), but discriminative models are very useful -- not to predict systematic collapses, but to discriminate irrational behavior.
Computers step in when your response time has to beat efficient markets.
You could be a common sense and logic genius, but you can only apply those rules and react in so much time, and computers will always beat you for speed at applying your own rules.
So it's a different kind of crutch, and just like a crutch, it can help you walk better, not walk for you.
I might have digressed from TFA, but this is /.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198893</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, I'd venture a guess that that machine could do a better job setting interest rates then the fed has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , I 'd venture a guess that that machine could do a better job setting interest rates then the fed has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, I'd venture a guess that that machine could do a better job setting interest rates then the fed has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198801</id>
	<title>14 machines?  One of the more successful?  ROFL</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EAI sold more than 500 of their 1952 16-231R model alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EAI sold more than 500 of their 1952 16-231R model alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EAI sold more than 500 of their 1952 16-231R model alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198797</id>
	<title>Article has inventor name wrong.</title>
	<author>Gouru</author>
	<datestamp>1244056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Article has it wrong though, claims some unknown named 'Philips' invented the glooper.  We all know it was Hubert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Article has it wrong though , claims some unknown named 'Philips ' invented the glooper .
We all know it was Hubert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article has it wrong though, claims some unknown named 'Philips' invented the glooper.
We all know it was Hubert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28214317</id>
	<title>Re:I Once Had a Toy...</title>
	<author>Limburgher</author>
	<datestamp>1244106540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Capsela?  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsela" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsela</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Capsela ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsela [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capsela?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsela [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201171</id>
	<title>Cool video</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1244023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a cool video of the computer in operation at Cambridge University.</p></div><p>No, there really isn't. The video consists of 3 minutes and 38 seconds of a guy explaining how he's not an economist and doesn't really understand this stuff, and clearing his throat an awful lot. Meanwhile, he proceeds to explain how he's shut off or removed most of the parts of the machine, and intends to only demonstrate a little bit of it. Just as he's about to begin the demonstration, the video ends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a cool video of the computer in operation at Cambridge University.No , there really is n't .
The video consists of 3 minutes and 38 seconds of a guy explaining how he 's not an economist and does n't really understand this stuff , and clearing his throat an awful lot .
Meanwhile , he proceeds to explain how he 's shut off or removed most of the parts of the machine , and intends to only demonstrate a little bit of it .
Just as he 's about to begin the demonstration , the video ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a cool video of the computer in operation at Cambridge University.No, there really isn't.
The video consists of 3 minutes and 38 seconds of a guy explaining how he's not an economist and doesn't really understand this stuff, and clearing his throat an awful lot.
Meanwhile, he proceeds to explain how he's shut off or removed most of the parts of the machine, and intends to only demonstrate a little bit of it.
Just as he's about to begin the demonstration, the video ends.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201655</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.</p></div><p>Good luck with that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.</p></div><p>I am an atheist, and I don't agree there has to be a supernatural explanation without rational rules. It's not a case of being one or the other.</p><p>Not being rational isn't "irrational", just random. To assume everything measurable interacts only in time-space is narrow minded. Without time everything happens at once, without space everything overlaps. Taking time or space out of the picture, gives and explanation for where randomness comes from. If there's any truth to that, then the universe is not rational because then there's always a part to everything that can't be perceived.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.Good luck with that.To assume that this can not assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.I am an atheist , and I do n't agree there has to be a supernatural explanation without rational rules .
It 's not a case of being one or the other.Not being rational is n't " irrational " , just random .
To assume everything measurable interacts only in time-space is narrow minded .
Without time everything happens at once , without space everything overlaps .
Taking time or space out of the picture , gives and explanation for where randomness comes from .
If there 's any truth to that , then the universe is not rational because then there 's always a part to everything that ca n't be perceived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.Good luck with that.To assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.I am an atheist, and I don't agree there has to be a supernatural explanation without rational rules.
It's not a case of being one or the other.Not being rational isn't "irrational", just random.
To assume everything measurable interacts only in time-space is narrow minded.
Without time everything happens at once, without space everything overlaps.
Taking time or space out of the picture, gives and explanation for where randomness comes from.
If there's any truth to that, then the universe is not rational because then there's always a part to everything that can't be perceived.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200069</id>
	<title>Analog Into the 70s</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1244062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first got into computing during the 70s, there were still a lot of analog computers around. Solid-state circuitry was just getting cheap enough to eliminate their advantage for specialized computing. Never worked with them, but UCSC, where I transferred in 1974, had just recently removed one that the Social Sciences division had been using for statistical work. Somebody told me it had a gigantic lense. No idea why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first got into computing during the 70s , there were still a lot of analog computers around .
Solid-state circuitry was just getting cheap enough to eliminate their advantage for specialized computing .
Never worked with them , but UCSC , where I transferred in 1974 , had just recently removed one that the Social Sciences division had been using for statistical work .
Somebody told me it had a gigantic lense .
No idea why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first got into computing during the 70s, there were still a lot of analog computers around.
Solid-state circuitry was just getting cheap enough to eliminate their advantage for specialized computing.
Never worked with them, but UCSC, where I transferred in 1974, had just recently removed one that the Social Sciences division had been using for statistical work.
Somebody told me it had a gigantic lense.
No idea why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198481</id>
	<title>But Can it run Windows 7, Aquatic Edition?</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1244054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or does Moniac not have enough *chuckle* water pump cycles to run Crysis at 1800x1200?</p><p>God, sometimes I hate myself.</p><p>=Smidge=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or does Moniac not have enough * chuckle * water pump cycles to run Crysis at 1800x1200 ? God , sometimes I hate myself. = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or does Moniac not have enough *chuckle* water pump cycles to run Crysis at 1800x1200?God, sometimes I hate myself.=Smidge=</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199121</id>
	<title>Poor Ted...</title>
	<author>Java Pimp</author>
	<datestamp>1244057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Water flows through a series of clear pipes</p></div></blockquote><p>

If only this article came out a few years earlier, maybe we wouldn't have given him so much crap!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Water flows through a series of clear pipes If only this article came out a few years earlier , maybe we would n't have given him so much crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water flows through a series of clear pipes

If only this article came out a few years earlier, maybe we wouldn't have given him so much crap!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199281</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.</i><br>It is not feasible to make a perfect simulation of the universe since that it would require a computer more complex than the universe (and therefore unable to exist in our universe) to run and require information that the heisenberg uncertainty principle makes impossible to obtain as an initial state. Even if we could we would have to deal with quantum effects which as far as we can tell so far seem to be random.</p><p>So instead of a perfect simulation we have to settle for models based on approximations of reality and imperfect initial conditions. Combine error buildup from the approximations in the model with a chaotic system and you will find that beyond a certain distance out it is not possible to make meaningfull predictions</p><p><i>To assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.</i><br>or just good old randomness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it , then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.It is not feasible to make a perfect simulation of the universe since that it would require a computer more complex than the universe ( and therefore unable to exist in our universe ) to run and require information that the heisenberg uncertainty principle makes impossible to obtain as an initial state .
Even if we could we would have to deal with quantum effects which as far as we can tell so far seem to be random.So instead of a perfect simulation we have to settle for models based on approximations of reality and imperfect initial conditions .
Combine error buildup from the approximations in the model with a chaotic system and you will find that beyond a certain distance out it is not possible to make meaningfull predictionsTo assume that this can not assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.or just good old randomness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.It is not feasible to make a perfect simulation of the universe since that it would require a computer more complex than the universe (and therefore unable to exist in our universe) to run and require information that the heisenberg uncertainty principle makes impossible to obtain as an initial state.
Even if we could we would have to deal with quantum effects which as far as we can tell so far seem to be random.So instead of a perfect simulation we have to settle for models based on approximations of reality and imperfect initial conditions.
Combine error buildup from the approximations in the model with a chaotic system and you will find that beyond a certain distance out it is not possible to make meaningfull predictionsTo assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.or just good old randomness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198777</id>
	<title>Cool differential equation engine in action</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1244056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty cool, and a little steampunk. Is it just me, or was that thing wheezin' like an iron lung in the video?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty cool , and a little steampunk .
Is it just me , or was that thing wheezin ' like an iron lung in the video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty cool, and a little steampunk.
Is it just me, or was that thing wheezin' like an iron lung in the video?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198165</id>
	<title>Hot and cold running money!</title>
	<author>thewiz</author>
	<datestamp>1244053500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow!  Great article about it in Wikipedia.  Loved the picture that showed the two faucets on the side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Great article about it in Wikipedia .
Loved the picture that showed the two faucets on the side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Great article about it in Wikipedia.
Loved the picture that showed the two faucets on the side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198553</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1244055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!</p><p>Yeah...but can it run Linux?</p><p>(with the obligatory troll post about the level 5 dwarf maintaining my OS in at least one of the replies)</p><p>How many LOCs can this thing hold?</p><p>Didn't I see that thing in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?</p><p>That sbout cover them all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these ! Yeah...but can it run Linux ?
( with the obligatory troll post about the level 5 dwarf maintaining my OS in at least one of the replies ) How many LOCs can this thing hold ? Did n't I see that thing in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ? That sbout cover them all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!Yeah...but can it run Linux?
(with the obligatory troll post about the level 5 dwarf maintaining my OS in at least one of the replies)How many LOCs can this thing hold?Didn't I see that thing in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?That sbout cover them all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199093</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Tokolosh</author>
	<datestamp>1244057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you need is the Micawber Principle:</p><p>"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."</p><p>From David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you need is the Micawber Principle : " Annual income twenty pounds , annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six , result happiness .
Annual income twenty pounds , annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six , result misery .
" From David Copperfield , by Charles Dickens</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you need is the Micawber Principle:"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
"From David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201181</id>
	<title>It's...</title>
	<author>l0b0</author>
	<datestamp>1244023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Glooper" title="lspace.org">Glooper</a> [lspace.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Glooper [ lspace.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Glooper [lspace.org]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198567</id>
	<title>modeling current economic woes = attach a balloon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modeling the current economic woes?  Just attach a balloon in the appropriate place.</p><p>When it bursts, there'll be a big mess to clean up and it'll take a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modeling the current economic woes ?
Just attach a balloon in the appropriate place.When it bursts , there 'll be a big mess to clean up and it 'll take a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modeling the current economic woes?
Just attach a balloon in the appropriate place.When it bursts, there'll be a big mess to clean up and it'll take a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28206349</id>
	<title>if it could have been used to predict our ...</title>
	<author>ezzthetic</author>
	<datestamp>1244146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties</i>
<br> <br>

Only if it sprung a leak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties Only if it sprung a leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties
 

Only if it sprung a leak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200139</id>
	<title>So... Where does the boom come from?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to have a boom, someone must be spending money. Where does it come from?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to have a boom , someone must be spending money .
Where does it come from ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to have a boom, someone must be spending money.
Where does it come from?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</id>
	<title>Explosives factories</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1244053140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some explosives factories still use hydraulics, steam or vacuum for process control.  Although it tends to be digital now, with valves used as flip-flops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some explosives factories still use hydraulics , steam or vacuum for process control .
Although it tends to be digital now , with valves used as flip-flops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some explosives factories still use hydraulics, steam or vacuum for process control.
Although it tends to be digital now, with valves used as flip-flops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198543</id>
	<title>Re:ya gotta be kidding!</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1244054940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1998, you mean. There was a reason they had all those banking rules developed over centuries, You can't just wipe them out with a stroke of a pen, and expect no consequences.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1998 , you mean .
There was a reason they had all those banking rules developed over centuries , You ca n't just wipe them out with a stroke of a pen , and expect no consequences .
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1998, you mean.
There was a reason they had all those banking rules developed over centuries, You can't just wipe them out with a stroke of a pen, and expect no consequences.
        Brett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198261</id>
	<title>Re:Explosives factories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some normal, non-explosives factories do, too. Except in their case, it's because they're too cheap, too lazy or too incompetent to upgrade properly. Obviously, the US is losing mfging because the Chinese are cheating. Obviously. But more generally, pneumatic circuits that use some logic aren't uncommon on a small scale. Stuff like safety interlocks (e.g., cyl 1 is extended, so can't extend cyl3 which would collide).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some normal , non-explosives factories do , too .
Except in their case , it 's because they 're too cheap , too lazy or too incompetent to upgrade properly .
Obviously , the US is losing mfging because the Chinese are cheating .
Obviously. But more generally , pneumatic circuits that use some logic are n't uncommon on a small scale .
Stuff like safety interlocks ( e.g. , cyl 1 is extended , so ca n't extend cyl3 which would collide ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some normal, non-explosives factories do, too.
Except in their case, it's because they're too cheap, too lazy or too incompetent to upgrade properly.
Obviously, the US is losing mfging because the Chinese are cheating.
Obviously. But more generally, pneumatic circuits that use some logic aren't uncommon on a small scale.
Stuff like safety interlocks (e.g., cyl 1 is extended, so can't extend cyl3 which would collide).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204937</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it used the wrong working fluid</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1244042160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There would have been too many rounds of "profit taking".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There would have been too many rounds of " profit taking " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There would have been too many rounds of "profit taking".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207563</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Deus.1.01</author>
	<datestamp>1244119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A djeez!</p><p>Who let the determinist in here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A djeez ! Who let the determinist in here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A djeez!Who let the determinist in here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199441</id>
	<title>Re:What economic assumptions is it using?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine?  I cannot discern this from its diagram or descriptions, but it just looks wrong to me.</p></div><p>It's a series of tubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine ?
I can not discern this from its diagram or descriptions , but it just looks wrong to me.It 's a series of tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine?
I cannot discern this from its diagram or descriptions, but it just looks wrong to me.It's a series of tubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985</id>
	<title>I Once Had a Toy...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once had a wonderful, yet frustrating, toy whose name I can't remember any longer that was kind of a hydraulic Erector Set.  It came with battery-powered pumps, clear plastic tubing, splitting/combining Y and T connectors, valves, tanks, items that filled and then tipped out, a board and supports to arrange everything, and even coloring tablets (messy) to allow blending different streams -- just add water.  The frustration came from the poor level of construction that resulted in it not being all that durable and the pumps not seeming to work as long or as well as I felt they should.  And when you used it you pretty much ended up with water, and staining colors when you added them, in a mess all around.  Even so it was one of the great fun toys (along with Lincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, Erector Sets, and Flexigons) that I would happily play with now if I could find them again.  No, we weren't a Leggo family.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once had a wonderful , yet frustrating , toy whose name I ca n't remember any longer that was kind of a hydraulic Erector Set .
It came with battery-powered pumps , clear plastic tubing , splitting/combining Y and T connectors , valves , tanks , items that filled and then tipped out , a board and supports to arrange everything , and even coloring tablets ( messy ) to allow blending different streams -- just add water .
The frustration came from the poor level of construction that resulted in it not being all that durable and the pumps not seeming to work as long or as well as I felt they should .
And when you used it you pretty much ended up with water , and staining colors when you added them , in a mess all around .
Even so it was one of the great fun toys ( along with Lincoln Logs , Tinker Toys , Erector Sets , and Flexigons ) that I would happily play with now if I could find them again .
No , we were n't a Leggo family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once had a wonderful, yet frustrating, toy whose name I can't remember any longer that was kind of a hydraulic Erector Set.
It came with battery-powered pumps, clear plastic tubing, splitting/combining Y and T connectors, valves, tanks, items that filled and then tipped out, a board and supports to arrange everything, and even coloring tablets (messy) to allow blending different streams -- just add water.
The frustration came from the poor level of construction that resulted in it not being all that durable and the pumps not seeming to work as long or as well as I felt they should.
And when you used it you pretty much ended up with water, and staining colors when you added them, in a mess all around.
Even so it was one of the great fun toys (along with Lincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, Erector Sets, and Flexigons) that I would happily play with now if I could find them again.
No, we weren't a Leggo family.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198459</id>
	<title>Predict the economic trouble today?</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1244054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not, but Byron Dorgon Predicted this trouble in 1995 when teh derivatives markets starte to get noticed and again in 1998 when the "securities modernization act" was passed, deregulating the banks, insurance companies and investments firms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not , but Byron Dorgon Predicted this trouble in 1995 when teh derivatives markets starte to get noticed and again in 1998 when the " securities modernization act " was passed , deregulating the banks , insurance companies and investments firms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not, but Byron Dorgon Predicted this trouble in 1995 when teh derivatives markets starte to get noticed and again in 1998 when the "securities modernization act" was passed, deregulating the banks, insurance companies and investments firms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28203691</id>
	<title>Crunchly's hydraulic computer</title>
	<author>dido</author>
	<datestamp>1244032920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a whole series in the Crunchly cartoons by Guy L. Steele, such as <a href="http://catb.org/jargon/html/W/winged-comments.html#crunchly74-12-29" title="catb.org">this one</a> [catb.org] where he buys a hydraulic computer of sorts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a whole series in the Crunchly cartoons by Guy L. Steele , such as this one [ catb.org ] where he buys a hydraulic computer of sorts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a whole series in the Crunchly cartoons by Guy L. Steele, such as this one [catb.org] where he buys a hydraulic computer of sorts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199581</id>
	<title>A five year old with an abacus and 20 minutes</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1244060040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could predict todays our current economic difficulties and spend 18 minutes playing with the abacus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could predict todays our current economic difficulties and spend 18 minutes playing with the abacus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could predict todays our current economic difficulties and spend 18 minutes playing with the abacus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204135</id>
	<title>Re:Explosives factories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on a boat (I'm on a boat)<br>I'm on a boat (I'm on a boat)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....I got my swim trunks<br>And my flippie-floppies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on a boat ( I 'm on a boat ) I 'm on a boat ( I 'm on a boat ) .... ....I got my swim trunksAnd my flippie-floppies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on a boat (I'm on a boat)I'm on a boat (I'm on a boat) .... ....I got my swim trunksAnd my flippie-floppies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199559</id>
	<title>Other Great Analogue Computers</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about The Great Brass Brain?  An analogue computer for computing tide tables that when replaced by a CDC 6600 super (for its time) computer, the 6600 couldn't perform all of the tricks (i.e. pause at each low/high tide moment or produce a continuous) graph of the machine it replaced?  There's some great, mostly lost, history out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about The Great Brass Brain ?
An analogue computer for computing tide tables that when replaced by a CDC 6600 super ( for its time ) computer , the 6600 could n't perform all of the tricks ( i.e .
pause at each low/high tide moment or produce a continuous ) graph of the machine it replaced ?
There 's some great , mostly lost , history out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about The Great Brass Brain?
An analogue computer for computing tide tables that when replaced by a CDC 6600 super (for its time) computer, the 6600 couldn't perform all of the tricks (i.e.
pause at each low/high tide moment or produce a continuous) graph of the machine it replaced?
There's some great, mostly lost, history out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199085</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ overlords...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ overlords.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ overlords...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198219</id>
	<title>What economic assumptions is it using?</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1244053680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine?  I cannot discern this from its diagram or descriptions, but it just looks wrong to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine ?
I can not discern this from its diagram or descriptions , but it just looks wrong to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the underlying economic premises of this machine?
I cannot discern this from its diagram or descriptions, but it just looks wrong to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198323</id>
	<title>Used in fighter planes</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1244054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hydraulic computers are used in some military aircraft because they are very reliable and can withstand EMP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydraulic computers are used in some military aircraft because they are very reliable and can withstand EMP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydraulic computers are used in some military aircraft because they are very reliable and can withstand EMP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198435</id>
	<title>Yes!</title>
	<author>drewsup</author>
	<datestamp>1244054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But will it run hydraulic Linix</htmltext>
<tokenext>But will it run hydraulic Linix</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will it run hydraulic Linix</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198751</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modelling the economy is more difficult than most other modelling tasks because everyone is trying to do it.  Every single actor in the system has their own model, of varying quality, which governs how they interact with it.  When you build a better model of the economy, you have an advantage over the other players and so can make more money, which alters the economy.  An accurate model which no one acts on is possible, but an accurate and useful model needs to be sufficiently complex to model itself and all of the other players.  Or, to put it another way, needs to be more complex than itself.  That's not to say that you can't build a partially-accurate and still useful model, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modelling the economy is more difficult than most other modelling tasks because everyone is trying to do it .
Every single actor in the system has their own model , of varying quality , which governs how they interact with it .
When you build a better model of the economy , you have an advantage over the other players and so can make more money , which alters the economy .
An accurate model which no one acts on is possible , but an accurate and useful model needs to be sufficiently complex to model itself and all of the other players .
Or , to put it another way , needs to be more complex than itself .
That 's not to say that you ca n't build a partially-accurate and still useful model , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modelling the economy is more difficult than most other modelling tasks because everyone is trying to do it.
Every single actor in the system has their own model, of varying quality, which governs how they interact with it.
When you build a better model of the economy, you have an advantage over the other players and so can make more money, which alters the economy.
An accurate model which no one acts on is possible, but an accurate and useful model needs to be sufficiently complex to model itself and all of the other players.
Or, to put it another way, needs to be more complex than itself.
That's not to say that you can't build a partially-accurate and still useful model, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198789</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Fungii</author>
	<datestamp>1244056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how anything you've said implies that computers can't model macroeconomics. The kind unstable behaviour you're describing certainly limits the accuracy, but instabilities can definitely be predicted too. It's not as futile as you seem to be making out.</p><p>And another thing - people's sense of wealth and understanding of risk isn't something that should need to be modeled, those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how anything you 've said implies that computers ca n't model macroeconomics .
The kind unstable behaviour you 're describing certainly limits the accuracy , but instabilities can definitely be predicted too .
It 's not as futile as you seem to be making out.And another thing - people 's sense of wealth and understanding of risk is n't something that should need to be modeled , those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how anything you've said implies that computers can't model macroeconomics.
The kind unstable behaviour you're describing certainly limits the accuracy, but instabilities can definitely be predicted too.
It's not as futile as you seem to be making out.And another thing - people's sense of wealth and understanding of risk isn't something that should need to be modeled, those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205033</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1244042880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although if you looked at the video - they had flow controlled by response to other flows in the system. For example the video goes over the roll of interest rates and how the water flow rate is affected by a non-linear response. It appears in the video that these responses are replaceable - you can choose a response with any shape. So you can try out model scenarios. In your example above you could  create something like this computer - with flow on the road (congestion) that responds to stimuli - like more people using the road if you widen the road. Instead of modeling in a computer the flow of water they should have made a hydraulic computer.

As an aside I heard some of the nuclear physicist that were lacking something to do when we stopped making nukes, got a grant and used their modeling skills on congestion. To test their models they would go out in cars and create traffic jams by following some of the model parameters. So who knows - many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers may have been test subjects for congestion model verification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although if you looked at the video - they had flow controlled by response to other flows in the system .
For example the video goes over the roll of interest rates and how the water flow rate is affected by a non-linear response .
It appears in the video that these responses are replaceable - you can choose a response with any shape .
So you can try out model scenarios .
In your example above you could create something like this computer - with flow on the road ( congestion ) that responds to stimuli - like more people using the road if you widen the road .
Instead of modeling in a computer the flow of water they should have made a hydraulic computer .
As an aside I heard some of the nuclear physicist that were lacking something to do when we stopped making nukes , got a grant and used their modeling skills on congestion .
To test their models they would go out in cars and create traffic jams by following some of the model parameters .
So who knows - many /.ers may have been test subjects for congestion model verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although if you looked at the video - they had flow controlled by response to other flows in the system.
For example the video goes over the roll of interest rates and how the water flow rate is affected by a non-linear response.
It appears in the video that these responses are replaceable - you can choose a response with any shape.
So you can try out model scenarios.
In your example above you could  create something like this computer - with flow on the road (congestion) that responds to stimuli - like more people using the road if you widen the road.
Instead of modeling in a computer the flow of water they should have made a hydraulic computer.
As an aside I heard some of the nuclear physicist that were lacking something to do when we stopped making nukes, got a grant and used their modeling skills on congestion.
To test their models they would go out in cars and create traffic jams by following some of the model parameters.
So who knows - many /.ers may have been test subjects for congestion model verification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198415</id>
	<title>Memory Leak</title>
	<author>SubjectiveObjection</author>
	<datestamp>1244054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Johnny, there's another damn memory leak! Bring the bucket!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Johnny , there 's another damn memory leak !
Bring the bucket !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Johnny, there's another damn memory leak!
Bring the bucket!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198247</id>
	<title>Wierd!      Just read Terry Pratchett's</title>
	<author>bareman</author>
	<datestamp>1244053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just finished with Terry Pratchett's "Making Money".  I think I'm having a flashback now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just finished with Terry Pratchett 's " Making Money " .
I think I 'm having a flashback now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just finished with Terry Pratchett's "Making Money".
I think I'm having a flashback now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519</id>
	<title>pneumatic computers exist too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244054820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In class I built a half-adder and a full-adder and could do 2 bit addition with it. subtraction too if I interpret input and output as 2s complement numbers. I ran out of parts in my kit to make it bigger. but with enough parts you could do pretty much anything, as long as you don't mind the slowness and noise and possibly a tremendous amount of power.</p><p>hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely. which is useful when you have many layers of "logic gates" that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes. with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In class I built a half-adder and a full-adder and could do 2 bit addition with it .
subtraction too if I interpret input and output as 2s complement numbers .
I ran out of parts in my kit to make it bigger .
but with enough parts you could do pretty much anything , as long as you do n't mind the slowness and noise and possibly a tremendous amount of power.hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely .
which is useful when you have many layers of " logic gates " that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes .
with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In class I built a half-adder and a full-adder and could do 2 bit addition with it.
subtraction too if I interpret input and output as 2s complement numbers.
I ran out of parts in my kit to make it bigger.
but with enough parts you could do pretty much anything, as long as you don't mind the slowness and noise and possibly a tremendous amount of power.hydraulics have the advantage that you can apply a great deal of force through them precisely.
which is useful when you have many layers of "logic gates" that you have to drive by pushing a fluid through some tubes.
with pneumatics I could have quickly ran into an issue if I made a ripple counter for example where the amount of pressure necessary to switch the furthest most element might exceed the abilities of my pump.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199049</id>
	<title>Scaled-Simulation versus Computer</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The boundary between "analog computer" and "scaled simulation" seems rather fuzzy. I suppose the more it physically resembles the original (but smaller), the more it's a simulation rather than computer. But many of these old devices seem a mix, and thus the classification is multi-pronged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The boundary between " analog computer " and " scaled simulation " seems rather fuzzy .
I suppose the more it physically resembles the original ( but smaller ) , the more it 's a simulation rather than computer .
But many of these old devices seem a mix , and thus the classification is multi-pronged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The boundary between "analog computer" and "scaled simulation" seems rather fuzzy.
I suppose the more it physically resembles the original (but smaller), the more it's a simulation rather than computer.
But many of these old devices seem a mix, and thus the classification is multi-pronged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28202947</id>
	<title>Obligatory Ada Lovelace comic</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1244029680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Featuring an Economic Model inspired by MONIAC:</p><p><a href="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/lovelace-and-babbage-vs-the-economy/" title="sydneypadua.com">http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/lovelace-and-babbage-vs-the-economy/</a> [sydneypadua.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Featuring an Economic Model inspired by MONIAC : http : //sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/lovelace-and-babbage-vs-the-economy/ [ sydneypadua.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Featuring an Economic Model inspired by MONIAC:http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/lovelace-and-babbage-vs-the-economy/ [sydneypadua.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198331</id>
	<title>language</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1244054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty slick considering the times<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Hydro-functional programming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty slick considering the times .. . Hydro-functional programming : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty slick considering the times ...

Hydro-functional programming :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199129</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The U.S. government pays its debts" is a model. I wonder if it will stay accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The U.S. government pays its debts " is a model .
I wonder if it will stay accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The U.S. government pays its debts" is a model.
I wonder if it will stay accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199679</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>CanadaIsCold</author>
	<datestamp>1244060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computers are never a solution to lack of knowledge although they can help us manage larger datasets in an efficient way. What it comes down to is the current state of economic theory is not sufficient to model macroeconomics. Some day these theoretical models may improve in which case computers are a great tool for managing what will be a large and complex dataset. To in any way suggest that the current macroeconomic models are anything other than predictive is a lie. So basically it's a choice of where to spend your research money and we should be spending on Economics if we want the model to improve not Comp Sci. Although I think there is plenty of Comp Sci work left to be done, which can be a benefit to multiple disciplines rather than an individual one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers are never a solution to lack of knowledge although they can help us manage larger datasets in an efficient way .
What it comes down to is the current state of economic theory is not sufficient to model macroeconomics .
Some day these theoretical models may improve in which case computers are a great tool for managing what will be a large and complex dataset .
To in any way suggest that the current macroeconomic models are anything other than predictive is a lie .
So basically it 's a choice of where to spend your research money and we should be spending on Economics if we want the model to improve not Comp Sci .
Although I think there is plenty of Comp Sci work left to be done , which can be a benefit to multiple disciplines rather than an individual one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers are never a solution to lack of knowledge although they can help us manage larger datasets in an efficient way.
What it comes down to is the current state of economic theory is not sufficient to model macroeconomics.
Some day these theoretical models may improve in which case computers are a great tool for managing what will be a large and complex dataset.
To in any way suggest that the current macroeconomic models are anything other than predictive is a lie.
So basically it's a choice of where to spend your research money and we should be spending on Economics if we want the model to improve not Comp Sci.
Although I think there is plenty of Comp Sci work left to be done, which can be a benefit to multiple disciplines rather than an individual one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198321</id>
	<title>A funnel can model "current economic difficulties"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If lots of people are extracting money from the system and not contributing real wealth, then there will be problems.  Money has complicated dynamics, but its not magic.  People who make a living shuffling numbers around in spreadsheets are providing a useful service that makes the system more efficient.  But only up to a point.  Few people believe greed is a vice anymore, hence certain results follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If lots of people are extracting money from the system and not contributing real wealth , then there will be problems .
Money has complicated dynamics , but its not magic .
People who make a living shuffling numbers around in spreadsheets are providing a useful service that makes the system more efficient .
But only up to a point .
Few people believe greed is a vice anymore , hence certain results follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If lots of people are extracting money from the system and not contributing real wealth, then there will be problems.
Money has complicated dynamics, but its not magic.
People who make a living shuffling numbers around in spreadsheets are providing a useful service that makes the system more efficient.
But only up to a point.
Few people believe greed is a vice anymore, hence certain results follow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198597</id>
	<title>Hydraulic Computers</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1244055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which gave rise to one of the oldest computer jokes: "If it doesn't work, piss on it."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which gave rise to one of the oldest computer jokes : " If it does n't work , piss on it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which gave rise to one of the oldest computer jokes: "If it doesn't work, piss on it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198623</id>
	<title>Not that I would start a new slashdot meme...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But do you think this analog technology might explain or predict why <i>Bing is pointless</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But do you think this analog technology might explain or predict why Bing is pointless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But do you think this analog technology might explain or predict why Bing is pointless?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198573</id>
	<title>also explored by air force for emp resistance</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1244055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall reading , many years ago in a magazine like popular science, that the air force was exploring analog computers for use in fighter jets; the rationale was that analog computers would be resistant to the electromagnetic pulse (emp) emitted by a nuclear blast; jets with analog computers could keep flying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall reading , many years ago in a magazine like popular science , that the air force was exploring analog computers for use in fighter jets ; the rationale was that analog computers would be resistant to the electromagnetic pulse ( emp ) emitted by a nuclear blast ; jets with analog computers could keep flying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall reading , many years ago in a magazine like popular science, that the air force was exploring analog computers for use in fighter jets; the rationale was that analog computers would be resistant to the electromagnetic pulse (emp) emitted by a nuclear blast; jets with analog computers could keep flying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201951</id>
	<title>Analog is slick</title>
	<author>g01d4</author>
	<datestamp>1244025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took an (electrical) analog computing course in the mid-70s. Best (only?) way to solve differential equations in real time till clock speeds caught up. LIke music on vinyl vs. 1KHz sampling. Optical ain't dead - how about a 2D FFT at the speed of light?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I took an ( electrical ) analog computing course in the mid-70s .
Best ( only ?
) way to solve differential equations in real time till clock speeds caught up .
LIke music on vinyl vs. 1KHz sampling .
Optical ai n't dead - how about a 2D FFT at the speed of light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took an (electrical) analog computing course in the mid-70s.
Best (only?
) way to solve differential equations in real time till clock speeds caught up.
LIke music on vinyl vs. 1KHz sampling.
Optical ain't dead - how about a 2D FFT at the speed of light?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200131</id>
	<title>It's so old</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1244062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That you program it using the Waterfall Model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That you program it using the Waterfall Model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That you program it using the Waterfall Model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199875</id>
	<title>Modern Replacement</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244061480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that this could be replaced today with an Excel spreadsheet - and no I'm not being facetious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that this could be replaced today with an Excel spreadsheet - and no I 'm not being facetious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that this could be replaced today with an Excel spreadsheet - and no I'm not being facetious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198147</id>
	<title>ya gotta be kidding!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties."</p><p>You didn't need a computer to tell you the current economic mess was coming.  It was obvious something big was coming by the end of the year.  Of 2007, that is.  They were giving mortgages to people that wouldn't have allowed to rent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties .
" You did n't need a computer to tell you the current economic mess was coming .
It was obvious something big was coming by the end of the year .
Of 2007 , that is .
They were giving mortgages to people that would n't have allowed to rent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties.
"You didn't need a computer to tell you the current economic mess was coming.
It was obvious something big was coming by the end of the year.
Of 2007, that is.
They were giving mortgages to people that wouldn't have allowed to rent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.</i></p><p>Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics, genetics, and chemistry?</p><p>If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.</p><p>You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.</p><p>And you have to sometimes build something as big as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC" title="wikipedia.org">LHC</a> [wikipedia.org] to figure what model you should use.</p><p>To assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.</p><p>Like you know... Like a Flying Spaghetti Monster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics , or predict systematic collapses , any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics , genetics , and chemistry ? If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it , then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.And you have to sometimes build something as big as the LHC [ wikipedia.org ] to figure what model you should use.To assume that this can not assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.Like you know... Like a Flying Spaghetti Monster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can.Are you saying that human irrationality is defined by something other than the laws of physics, genetics, and chemistry?If we are to believe that the universe does have a set of laws applied to it, then by understanding those rules can lead to models that will predict otherwise seemly irrational universe.You just have to have the right model and a computer powerful enough to compute all the date required to get something use.And you have to sometimes build something as big as the LHC [wikipedia.org] to figure what model you should use.To assume that this cannot assumes that universe does not have rational rules and is ruled by something else like a supernatural force.Like you know... Like a Flying Spaghetti Monster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198717</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>OwnedByTwoCats</author>
	<datestamp>1244055720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some fundamental limits to what models can predict.  If a model demonstrates extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, then any deviation between actual and measured initial conditions will cause the output of the model to deviate from actual at an exponential rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some fundamental limits to what models can predict .
If a model demonstrates extreme sensitivity to initial conditions , then any deviation between actual and measured initial conditions will cause the output of the model to deviate from actual at an exponential rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some fundamental limits to what models can predict.
If a model demonstrates extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, then any deviation between actual and measured initial conditions will cause the output of the model to deviate from actual at an exponential rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198807</id>
	<title>Yep</title>
	<author>madnis</author>
	<datestamp>1244056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shows that our economy is down the drain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shows that our economy is down the drain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shows that our economy is down the drain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199757</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>gilroy</author>
	<datestamp>1244061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes. "Road is congested? Make it wider and the congestion will ease." What they don't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.</p></div></blockquote><p>Also, when you treat traffic as a compressible fluid, you get 20-car pile-ups, because cars aren't compressible... or at least, they're not <em>un</em>compressible afterwards...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes .
" Road is congested ?
Make it wider and the congestion will ease .
" What they do n't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.Also , when you treat traffic as a compressible fluid , you get 20-car pile-ups , because cars are n't compressible... or at least , they 're not uncompressible afterwards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes.
"Road is congested?
Make it wider and the congestion will ease.
" What they don't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.Also, when you treat traffic as a compressible fluid, you get 20-car pile-ups, because cars aren't compressible... or at least, they're not uncompressible afterwards...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198679</id>
	<title>Re:Computers can't model macroeconomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't take a computer to predict what happens. You get a boom, people spend money, they overspend, you get a crash. Repeat. The details vary, but the basic pattern seems pretty clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't take a computer to predict what happens .
You get a boom , people spend money , they overspend , you get a crash .
Repeat. The details vary , but the basic pattern seems pretty clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't take a computer to predict what happens.
You get a boom, people spend money, they overspend, you get a crash.
Repeat. The details vary, but the basic pattern seems pretty clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199321</id>
	<title>Re:pneumatic computers exist too</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1244058780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be a solved problem.  I don't know the terminology or component in pneumatics or hydraulics.  In electronics, you add an inverter or a buffer, to use a weaker signal to control larger currents.  You don't power following transistors using the output of a previous transistor, each one is connected to the power rails and are controlled by input.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be a solved problem .
I do n't know the terminology or component in pneumatics or hydraulics .
In electronics , you add an inverter or a buffer , to use a weaker signal to control larger currents .
You do n't power following transistors using the output of a previous transistor , each one is connected to the power rails and are controlled by input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be a solved problem.
I don't know the terminology or component in pneumatics or hydraulics.
In electronics, you add an inverter or a buffer, to use a weaker signal to control larger currents.
You don't power following transistors using the output of a previous transistor, each one is connected to the power rails and are controlled by input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199185</id>
	<title>Memristor as analog computation</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1244058000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that the modern equivalent would be the memristor discovery discussed here many times before.  I think it might revive analog computation as it carries with it the capacity for continuous physical states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the modern equivalent would be the memristor discovery discussed here many times before .
I think it might revive analog computation as it carries with it the capacity for continuous physical states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the modern equivalent would be the memristor discovery discussed here many times before.
I think it might revive analog computation as it carries with it the capacity for continuous physical states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201155</id>
	<title>Re:Explosives factories</title>
	<author>Sen.NullProcPntr</author>
	<datestamp>1244023200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is what could be described as a hydraulic computer that people use everyday;<br>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_transmission#Hydraulic\_automatic\_transmissions" title="wikipedia.org">automatic transmission</a> [wikipedia.org]. Granted it has a fixed program but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic" title="wikipedia.org">early ones</a> [wikipedia.org] did use nothing but transmission fluid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is what could be described as a hydraulic computer that people use everyday ; The automatic transmission [ wikipedia.org ] .
Granted it has a fixed program but the early ones [ wikipedia.org ] did use nothing but transmission fluid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is what could be described as a hydraulic computer that people use everyday;The automatic transmission [wikipedia.org].
Granted it has a fixed program but the early ones [wikipedia.org] did use nothing but transmission fluid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199635</id>
	<title>Re:Used in fighter planes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Citation needed]</p><p>This sounds cool, any examples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation needed ] This sounds cool , any examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation needed]This sounds cool, any examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198323</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28212463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28209383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28214317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28216227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1629246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28214317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28212463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28204965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198751
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28201655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28216227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28200139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28207171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28209383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28198323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28205049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1629246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1629246.28199823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
