<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_1855200</id>
	<title>MS Says All Sidekick Data Recovered, But Damage Done</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255633080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>nandemoari writes <i>"<a href="http://www.infopackets.com/news/technology/mobile/2009/20091015\_ms\_all\_sidekick\_data\_recovered\_but\_damage\_done.htm">T-Mobile is taking a huge financial hit</a> in the fallout over the Sidekick data loss. But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation. As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/11/0335210&amp;tid=170">some users' data had been permanently lost</a> due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger. The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself. BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8309218.stm">recovered all data, but a minority are still affected</a> (out of 1 million subscribers). Amidst this, Microsoft appears not to have suffered any financial damage. However, it seems certain that its relationship with T-Mobile will have taken a major knock. The software giant is also the target of some very bad publicity as critics question how on earth it failed to put in place adequate back-ups of the data. That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nandemoari writes " T-Mobile is taking a huge financial hit in the fallout over the Sidekick data loss .
But Microsoft , which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake , is paying the price with its reputation .
As reported earlier this week , the phone network had to admit that some users ' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger .
The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself .
BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data , but a minority are still affected ( out of 1 million subscribers ) .
Amidst this , Microsoft appears not to have suffered any financial damage .
However , it seems certain that its relationship with T-Mobile will have taken a major knock .
The software giant is also the target of some very bad publicity as critics question how on earth it failed to put in place adequate back-ups of the data .
That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm 's other 'cloud computing ' plans , such as web-only editions of Office .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nandemoari writes "T-Mobile is taking a huge financial hit in the fallout over the Sidekick data loss.
But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.
As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that some users' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.
The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself.
BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers).
Amidst this, Microsoft appears not to have suffered any financial damage.
However, it seems certain that its relationship with T-Mobile will have taken a major knock.
The software giant is also the target of some very bad publicity as critics question how on earth it failed to put in place adequate back-ups of the data.
That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761479</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1255640100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, actually my employer <i>does</i> in fact generate their own power. Or rather, they can. Our data center runs off a UPS bank, which is fed by the mains feed and a generator. If mains power fails, the UPS has enough capacity to keep the data center running until the genny starts up and starts supplying power. It's more convenient to run off mains, but we don't assume mains power is totally reliable (or even completely clean, the UPS bank filters and stabilizes it).</p><p>And yes, they run monthly tests of the genny to make sure it'll start when it's needed. They also run an annual test that involves shutting off the mains feed upstream of us to make sure everything works when the mains feed goes dead for real, followed by a fail-over to our disaster-recovery data center to make sure <i>that</i> part of things works the way it's supposed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , actually my employer does in fact generate their own power .
Or rather , they can .
Our data center runs off a UPS bank , which is fed by the mains feed and a generator .
If mains power fails , the UPS has enough capacity to keep the data center running until the genny starts up and starts supplying power .
It 's more convenient to run off mains , but we do n't assume mains power is totally reliable ( or even completely clean , the UPS bank filters and stabilizes it ) .And yes , they run monthly tests of the genny to make sure it 'll start when it 's needed .
They also run an annual test that involves shutting off the mains feed upstream of us to make sure everything works when the mains feed goes dead for real , followed by a fail-over to our disaster-recovery data center to make sure that part of things works the way it 's supposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, actually my employer does in fact generate their own power.
Or rather, they can.
Our data center runs off a UPS bank, which is fed by the mains feed and a generator.
If mains power fails, the UPS has enough capacity to keep the data center running until the genny starts up and starts supplying power.
It's more convenient to run off mains, but we don't assume mains power is totally reliable (or even completely clean, the UPS bank filters and stabilizes it).And yes, they run monthly tests of the genny to make sure it'll start when it's needed.
They also run an annual test that involves shutting off the mains feed upstream of us to make sure everything works when the mains feed goes dead for real, followed by a fail-over to our disaster-recovery data center to make sure that part of things works the way it's supposed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760891</id>
	<title>Teenagers everywhere: REJOICE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, Totally Awesome, My SK is back in the clouds!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , Totally Awesome , My SK is back in the clouds !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, Totally Awesome, My SK is back in the clouds!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761059</id>
	<title>Stormy weather</title>
	<author>surfdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1255637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given how much of our internet access is being spied on by the government, how could ANYBODY want to trust their critical data to a cloud service? Sounds like Microsoft has Cumulonimbus clouds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how much of our internet access is being spied on by the government , how could ANYBODY want to trust their critical data to a cloud service ?
Sounds like Microsoft has Cumulonimbus clouds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how much of our internet access is being spied on by the government, how could ANYBODY want to trust their critical data to a cloud service?
Sounds like Microsoft has Cumulonimbus clouds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760997</id>
	<title>Seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think in the end that you get what you deserve if you actually bought a sidekick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in the end that you get what you deserve if you actually bought a sidekick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in the end that you get what you deserve if you actually bought a sidekick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765773</id>
	<title>How to test an HA server</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255627560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take both power cords (all HA servers have two power cords) and yank them out in the middle of the day.  If <i>anybody at all</i> notices that you did that, it's not an HA server.  For extra points hit your Cisco switch with a Tazer first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take both power cords ( all HA servers have two power cords ) and yank them out in the middle of the day .
If anybody at all notices that you did that , it 's not an HA server .
For extra points hit your Cisco switch with a Tazer first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take both power cords (all HA servers have two power cords) and yank them out in the middle of the day.
If anybody at all notices that you did that, it's not an HA server.
For extra points hit your Cisco switch with a Tazer first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761071</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?</p></div></blockquote><p> Er... because it is a form of cloud computing which failed?  When a failure like this occurs, it rightfully raises doubt as to the reliability of other cloud computing services, one of which happens to involve office.</p><blockquote><div><p>As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that some users' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger. The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the editorializing in the summary ?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago .
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter ?
Er... because it is a form of cloud computing which failed ?
When a failure like this occurs , it rightfully raises doubt as to the reliability of other cloud computing services , one of which happens to involve office.As reported earlier this week , the phone network had to admit that some users ' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger .
The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?
Er... because it is a form of cloud computing which failed?
When a failure like this occurs, it rightfully raises doubt as to the reliability of other cloud computing services, one of which happens to involve office.As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that some users' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.
The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765863</id>
	<title>Backups don't get the credit they deserve.</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255628640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The contribution to the computer sciences of the Reverend Dodgson are oft overlooked.  He was a CS major and his colorful works were IT manuals that take some digesting.  It is said that a full understanding of "Alice in Wonderland" will suffice as background for a full IT career.
</p><p> <a href="http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/chapter-01.html" title="literature.org" rel="nofollow">What I tell you three times is true.</a> [literature.org]  This is the rule.  A fact that is recorded in three geographically disparate locations (each more than 50 miles apart), did happen.  A fact that is not so recorded is open to debate.  Often that there is a question, regardless of what the answer is, is a career ending event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The contribution to the computer sciences of the Reverend Dodgson are oft overlooked .
He was a CS major and his colorful works were IT manuals that take some digesting .
It is said that a full understanding of " Alice in Wonderland " will suffice as background for a full IT career .
What I tell you three times is true .
[ literature.org ] This is the rule .
A fact that is recorded in three geographically disparate locations ( each more than 50 miles apart ) , did happen .
A fact that is not so recorded is open to debate .
Often that there is a question , regardless of what the answer is , is a career ending event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The contribution to the computer sciences of the Reverend Dodgson are oft overlooked.
He was a CS major and his colorful works were IT manuals that take some digesting.
It is said that a full understanding of "Alice in Wonderland" will suffice as background for a full IT career.
What I tell you three times is true.
[literature.org]  This is the rule.
A fact that is recorded in three geographically disparate locations (each more than 50 miles apart), did happen.
A fact that is not so recorded is open to debate.
Often that there is a question, regardless of what the answer is, is a career ending event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764241</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1255610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Ya, "all the time". I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM.  They "accidentially" deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers, like add an entry added to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts file.  I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ($2 million worth), brought the operations back in-house, paid the early-termination fee and still came out ahead financially and in operational support for the year with no further screw-ups.  Even got an award for moving the data center with no loss in production.
</p><p>
Sure, to each their own, but beware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , organizations use third party data centers ( or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party ) all the time w/o a glitch .
Ya , " all the time " .
I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM .
They " accidentially " deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers , like add an entry added to the /etc/hosts file .
I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ( $ 2 million worth ) , brought the operations back in-house , paid the early-termination fee and still came out ahead financially and in operational support for the year with no further screw-ups .
Even got an award for moving the data center with no loss in production .
Sure , to each their own , but beware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch.
Ya, "all the time".
I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM.
They "accidentially" deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers, like add an entry added to the /etc/hosts file.
I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ($2 million worth), brought the operations back in-house, paid the early-termination fee and still came out ahead financially and in operational support for the year with no further screw-ups.
Even got an award for moving the data center with no loss in production.
Sure, to each their own, but beware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766701</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd go further... the moment your partner got bought by MS you have a duty to start covering your ass, your customers' asses, and your reputation.  T-Mobile failed to do that.</p><p>They didn't go to bed with MS willingly, but when they were thrown in that bed they didn't jump out quick enough.  So they got the clap...</p><p>good!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go further... the moment your partner got bought by MS you have a duty to start covering your ass , your customers ' asses , and your reputation .
T-Mobile failed to do that.They did n't go to bed with MS willingly , but when they were thrown in that bed they did n't jump out quick enough .
So they got the clap...good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go further... the moment your partner got bought by MS you have a duty to start covering your ass, your customers' asses, and your reputation.
T-Mobile failed to do that.They didn't go to bed with MS willingly, but when they were thrown in that bed they didn't jump out quick enough.
So they got the clap...good!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761235</id>
	<title>Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1255638840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A company called Danger? Responsible for data and servers? Yowsa! Red alert time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company called Danger ?
Responsible for data and servers ?
Yowsa ! Red alert time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company called Danger?
Responsible for data and servers?
Yowsa! Red alert time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764855</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on how often the power outages occur. If I lived in India and could afford it, I would certainly have my own power generator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on how often the power outages occur .
If I lived in India and could afford it , I would certainly have my own power generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on how often the power outages occur.
If I lived in India and could afford it, I would certainly have my own power generator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761811</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255598460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually <i>don't</i> trust the power company to provide electricity 24x7, because <i>they don't</i>... at least not reliably.  In addition to a 3-day outage in the middle of winter several years ago, I lose power for more than a minute - often several hours - at least half a dozen times each year.  So yes: in addition to a UPS for my TiVo and other electronic essentials, I have a generator big enough to run my servers, router, etc. as long as I keep feeding it gasoline.<br>
&nbsp; <br>What third-world country do I live in that requires such measures?  Michigan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually do n't trust the power company to provide electricity 24x7 , because they do n't... at least not reliably .
In addition to a 3-day outage in the middle of winter several years ago , I lose power for more than a minute - often several hours - at least half a dozen times each year .
So yes : in addition to a UPS for my TiVo and other electronic essentials , I have a generator big enough to run my servers , router , etc .
as long as I keep feeding it gasoline .
  What third-world country do I live in that requires such measures ?
Michigan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually don't trust the power company to provide electricity 24x7, because they don't... at least not reliably.
In addition to a 3-day outage in the middle of winter several years ago, I lose power for more than a minute - often several hours - at least half a dozen times each year.
So yes: in addition to a UPS for my TiVo and other electronic essentials, I have a generator big enough to run my servers, router, etc.
as long as I keep feeding it gasoline.
  What third-world country do I live in that requires such measures?
Michigan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761651</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1255597680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>it's the future bro</p></div></blockquote><p>
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.  I'll keep my data in-house thank you.</p></div><p>Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch. Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.</p><p>

It is done all the time, by many, for years now. Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved. In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations, you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you (things that are inevitable in computing) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures (which can and will happen under your watch or someone else's.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the future bro Perhaps for people who do n't care about their data... Privacy , security , accountability and reliability can not be ensured by a third party .
I 'll keep my data in-house thank you.Dude , organizations use third party data centers ( or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party ) all the time w/o a glitch .
Unless you are a software giant ( like ebay or amazon ) that can build your own data center , or are a minor/midsize operation ( or are just a guy with a home computer ) , you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else 's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else 's watch .
It is done all the time , by many , for years now .
Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved .
In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations , you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you ( things that are inevitable in computing ) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures ( which can and will happen under your watch or someone else 's .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the future bro
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.
I'll keep my data in-house thank you.Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch.
Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.
It is done all the time, by many, for years now.
Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved.
In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations, you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you (things that are inevitable in computing) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures (which can and will happen under your watch or someone else's.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762455</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1255601160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>except word out on the street is that Microsoft moved over the vast majority of the Danger employees who stayed over to Microsoft's Ping Project and left the Danger division seriously under staffed. It also is going around that Microsoft had been telling T-Mobile that everything at Danger was fine and they were putting much effort into improving the software. In other words, they were lying to T-Mobile to keep T-Mobile selling the products and paying lots of money when Microsoft was really just putting the division on life-support and biding their time in hopes that Project Pink would produce something Microsoft could move Danger customers over to.<br><br>So is there NOT a reason to blame Microsoft for any of this?  I guess you also don't remember all the talk about Microsoft trying to get the Danger product moved onto a Windows platform instead of it's BSD and Java platform. Microsoft is well known for either buying a competitor and shutting them down or buying them and dictating the product be ported to Windows. They bashed the engineers at SoftImage for a few years on dropping the UNIX versions of their software even though they did get a Windows version running. Customers and engineers didn't want Windows and wanted to keep the UNIX versions. Microsoft finally sold the company and walked away with its tail between its legs and you can see by what the film industry uses that Windows was not welcome much in that environment. BSODs really piss off people who spend hours crunching data and don't see BSODs or the like on nix boxes. IMO<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>except word out on the street is that Microsoft moved over the vast majority of the Danger employees who stayed over to Microsoft 's Ping Project and left the Danger division seriously under staffed .
It also is going around that Microsoft had been telling T-Mobile that everything at Danger was fine and they were putting much effort into improving the software .
In other words , they were lying to T-Mobile to keep T-Mobile selling the products and paying lots of money when Microsoft was really just putting the division on life-support and biding their time in hopes that Project Pink would produce something Microsoft could move Danger customers over to.So is there NOT a reason to blame Microsoft for any of this ?
I guess you also do n't remember all the talk about Microsoft trying to get the Danger product moved onto a Windows platform instead of it 's BSD and Java platform .
Microsoft is well known for either buying a competitor and shutting them down or buying them and dictating the product be ported to Windows .
They bashed the engineers at SoftImage for a few years on dropping the UNIX versions of their software even though they did get a Windows version running .
Customers and engineers did n't want Windows and wanted to keep the UNIX versions .
Microsoft finally sold the company and walked away with its tail between its legs and you can see by what the film industry uses that Windows was not welcome much in that environment .
BSODs really piss off people who spend hours crunching data and do n't see BSODs or the like on nix boxes .
IMOLoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except word out on the street is that Microsoft moved over the vast majority of the Danger employees who stayed over to Microsoft's Ping Project and left the Danger division seriously under staffed.
It also is going around that Microsoft had been telling T-Mobile that everything at Danger was fine and they were putting much effort into improving the software.
In other words, they were lying to T-Mobile to keep T-Mobile selling the products and paying lots of money when Microsoft was really just putting the division on life-support and biding their time in hopes that Project Pink would produce something Microsoft could move Danger customers over to.So is there NOT a reason to blame Microsoft for any of this?
I guess you also don't remember all the talk about Microsoft trying to get the Danger product moved onto a Windows platform instead of it's BSD and Java platform.
Microsoft is well known for either buying a competitor and shutting them down or buying them and dictating the product be ported to Windows.
They bashed the engineers at SoftImage for a few years on dropping the UNIX versions of their software even though they did get a Windows version running.
Customers and engineers didn't want Windows and wanted to keep the UNIX versions.
Microsoft finally sold the company and walked away with its tail between its legs and you can see by what the film industry uses that Windows was not welcome much in that environment.
BSODs really piss off people who spend hours crunching data and don't see BSODs or the like on nix boxes.
IMOLoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761211</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1255638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you're overstating your point. Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster. We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in. Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure. Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up? No.</p></div><p>The point isn't to have a practiced procedure that your technicians can run through with their eyes closed...  The point is to actually test your backups and know whether they are working, whether the data is usable, and whether it is possible to get a production server up and running from that backup.</p><p>Most backups aren't going to be as easy as <i>insert tape, walk away, come back to a working production server an hour later</i>.  Most backups will involve some kind of re-pointing or importing or configuration or whatever.  That's kind of expected.</p><p>But if you never test your data, you don't know if there's anything being written to the tape (disk, cloud, whatever).  Sure, the backup program (script, monkey, whatever) claims the task was completed successfully...  But you don't <b>know</b>.  The data could all be corrupt.  Or you could have skipped some innocent-looking database that turns out to be truly essential.  Or you might have re-named a directory since the backup was configured, and now you aren't getting something that you need.</p><p>The point is that you <b>need</b> to <b>test</b> your backups periodically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overstating your point .
Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format , having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster .
We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it , we do ( manually and automatically ) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in .
Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy ?
Sure. Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up ?
No.The point is n't to have a practiced procedure that your technicians can run through with their eyes closed... The point is to actually test your backups and know whether they are working , whether the data is usable , and whether it is possible to get a production server up and running from that backup.Most backups are n't going to be as easy as insert tape , walk away , come back to a working production server an hour later .
Most backups will involve some kind of re-pointing or importing or configuration or whatever .
That 's kind of expected.But if you never test your data , you do n't know if there 's anything being written to the tape ( disk , cloud , whatever ) .
Sure , the backup program ( script , monkey , whatever ) claims the task was completed successfully... But you do n't know .
The data could all be corrupt .
Or you could have skipped some innocent-looking database that turns out to be truly essential .
Or you might have re-named a directory since the backup was configured , and now you are n't getting something that you need.The point is that you need to test your backups periodically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overstating your point.
Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster.
We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in.
Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy?
Sure. Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up?
No.The point isn't to have a practiced procedure that your technicians can run through with their eyes closed...  The point is to actually test your backups and know whether they are working, whether the data is usable, and whether it is possible to get a production server up and running from that backup.Most backups aren't going to be as easy as insert tape, walk away, come back to a working production server an hour later.
Most backups will involve some kind of re-pointing or importing or configuration or whatever.
That's kind of expected.But if you never test your data, you don't know if there's anything being written to the tape (disk, cloud, whatever).
Sure, the backup program (script, monkey, whatever) claims the task was completed successfully...  But you don't know.
The data could all be corrupt.
Or you could have skipped some innocent-looking database that turns out to be truly essential.
Or you might have re-named a directory since the backup was configured, and now you aren't getting something that you need.The point is that you need to test your backups periodically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762109</id>
	<title>Hire more Americans</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1255600020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764411</id>
	<title>Cloud computing, OP and TFA are HaU</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1255611780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>H</b>yped <b>a</b>s <b>U</b>sual.
<br>
How much of a "big financial" hit is Tmo really taking, $130 (100+month's data service) off per <i>specific</i> sidekick users? That's likely 25\% of the Tmo user base, not all of it. And those users are likely longtime customers too, so the hit is not too bad (like given them a free phone upgrade honestly, no biggie). That's why T-mobile is doing it: good customer service, and it's not that expensive. Good move T-Mobile, even though it was MS's problem!
<br>
As for MS, it is a hit to their reputation, but still doesn't effect the enterprise users, which is where MS will get its cloud computing gold nuggets. Remember, public consumers get cloud services for free nowdays and don't have problems switching to another cloud service. Enterprise users pay for theirs and usually resist moving services once committed.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Welcome to new cloud services, the same as old local IT network services. Not much different really (made sense they would recover the data cause it's still in a IT <b>Datacenter</b>)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hyped as Usual .
How much of a " big financial " hit is Tmo really taking , $ 130 ( 100 + month 's data service ) off per specific sidekick users ?
That 's likely 25 \ % of the Tmo user base , not all of it .
And those users are likely longtime customers too , so the hit is not too bad ( like given them a free phone upgrade honestly , no biggie ) .
That 's why T-mobile is doing it : good customer service , and it 's not that expensive .
Good move T-Mobile , even though it was MS 's problem !
As for MS , it is a hit to their reputation , but still does n't effect the enterprise users , which is where MS will get its cloud computing gold nuggets .
Remember , public consumers get cloud services for free nowdays and do n't have problems switching to another cloud service .
Enterprise users pay for theirs and usually resist moving services once committed .
Welcome to new cloud services , the same as old local IT network services .
Not much different really ( made sense they would recover the data cause it 's still in a IT Datacenter ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hyped as Usual.
How much of a "big financial" hit is Tmo really taking, $130 (100+month's data service) off per specific sidekick users?
That's likely 25\% of the Tmo user base, not all of it.
And those users are likely longtime customers too, so the hit is not too bad (like given them a free phone upgrade honestly, no biggie).
That's why T-mobile is doing it: good customer service, and it's not that expensive.
Good move T-Mobile, even though it was MS's problem!
As for MS, it is a hit to their reputation, but still doesn't effect the enterprise users, which is where MS will get its cloud computing gold nuggets.
Remember, public consumers get cloud services for free nowdays and don't have problems switching to another cloud service.
Enterprise users pay for theirs and usually resist moving services once committed.
Welcome to new cloud services, the same as old local IT network services.
Not much different really (made sense they would recover the data cause it's still in a IT Datacenter)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763195</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255604100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.  I'll keep my data in-house thank you.</p></div><p>On the other hand, your data is never more private or secure as it is when *no one* can get to it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps for people who do n't care about their data... Privacy , security , accountability and reliability can not be ensured by a third party .
I 'll keep my data in-house thank you.On the other hand , your data is never more private or secure as it is when * no one * can get to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.
I'll keep my data in-house thank you.On the other hand, your data is never more private or secure as it is when *no one* can get to it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761501</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1255640220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady, sober, dependable service like a local utility, [or] like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns</p></div></blockquote><p>Man, what fantasyland are your utilities located in?  I wanna move there!  In my experience, utilities *are* "giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady , sober , dependable service like a local utility , [ or ] like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concernsMan , what fantasyland are your utilities located in ?
I wan na move there !
In my experience , utilities * are * " giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady, sober, dependable service like a local utility, [or] like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concernsMan, what fantasyland are your utilities located in?
I wanna move there!
In my experience, utilities *are* "giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761645</id>
	<title>Re:Critics only *NOW* questioning MS's competence?</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1255597620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's kind of like having a reference customer.  It's all very well showing that they are incompetent in theory.  It's good to be able to set up the production servers and run load tests.  Here we have a real life demo that MS can really damage loads of customer's data.  There are always cynics who say "yes, but they won't be able to do it in production".  Now nobody will be able to claim that MS can't do an up to date full scale cloud screw up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kind of like having a reference customer .
It 's all very well showing that they are incompetent in theory .
It 's good to be able to set up the production servers and run load tests .
Here we have a real life demo that MS can really damage loads of customer 's data .
There are always cynics who say " yes , but they wo n't be able to do it in production " .
Now nobody will be able to claim that MS ca n't do an up to date full scale cloud screw up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kind of like having a reference customer.
It's all very well showing that they are incompetent in theory.
It's good to be able to set up the production servers and run load tests.
Here we have a real life demo that MS can really damage loads of customer's data.
There are always cynics who say "yes, but they won't be able to do it in production".
Now nobody will be able to claim that MS can't do an up to date full scale cloud screw up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761519</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1255640280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't buzz me, bro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buzz me , bro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buzz me, bro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879</id>
	<title>Trusting in Microsoft's servers? Hah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255636980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a feeling that Microsoft-owned also means powered by Windows, hah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that Microsoft-owned also means powered by Windows , hah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that Microsoft-owned also means powered by Windows, hah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761131</id>
	<title>well of course it is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least bother to read the summary you dolt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least bother to read the summary you dolt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least bother to read the summary you dolt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165</id>
	<title>One thing and another</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1255638420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cloud computing and remote storage are not necessarily the same.<br> <br>
What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.<br>
Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having <b>and thus exploiting</b> that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing and remote storage are not necessarily the same .
What we see here is a small device storing it 's data remotely and I wonder why .
Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing , having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing and remote storage are not necessarily the same.
What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.
Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761877</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255598760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you expect, it's timothy!  He'll post anything as long as it's misleading and bashes Microsoft...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you expect , it 's timothy !
He 'll post anything as long as it 's misleading and bashes Microsoft.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you expect, it's timothy!
He'll post anything as long as it's misleading and bashes Microsoft...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761219</id>
	<title>It was T-Mobile's name on the contract and device.</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1255638720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If T-Mobile plasters their name on the contract, the device, and the service, then the buck stops there.  Period.  Internally, T-Mobile can choose to blame the Easter Bunny if they like, but ultimately, it was T-Mobile's responsibility to ensure that their customer's data was properly protected.  This absolutely could have been prevented by audits of Microsofts/Danger's operations, checks of backup integrity, tighter contracts, etc.  T-Mobile can go try and sue MS to get their damages back, but in the meantime, customers can, and should, be blaming (and suing) T-Mobile.</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If T-Mobile plasters their name on the contract , the device , and the service , then the buck stops there .
Period. Internally , T-Mobile can choose to blame the Easter Bunny if they like , but ultimately , it was T-Mobile 's responsibility to ensure that their customer 's data was properly protected .
This absolutely could have been prevented by audits of Microsofts/Danger 's operations , checks of backup integrity , tighter contracts , etc .
T-Mobile can go try and sue MS to get their damages back , but in the meantime , customers can , and should , be blaming ( and suing ) T-Mobile.SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If T-Mobile plasters their name on the contract, the device, and the service, then the buck stops there.
Period.  Internally, T-Mobile can choose to blame the Easter Bunny if they like, but ultimately, it was T-Mobile's responsibility to ensure that their customer's data was properly protected.
This absolutely could have been prevented by audits of Microsofts/Danger's operations, checks of backup integrity, tighter contracts, etc.
T-Mobile can go try and sue MS to get their damages back, but in the meantime, customers can, and should, be blaming (and suing) T-Mobile.SirWired</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762773</id>
	<title>Wrong wrong wrong!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255602240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation."<br>Microsoft bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISTAKE!<br>They own Danger and they run the data center that stores the data!<br>It was their fault 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But Microsoft , which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake , is paying the price with its reputation .
" Microsoft bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISTAKE ! They own Danger and they run the data center that stores the data ! It was their fault 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.
"Microsoft bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISTAKE!They own Danger and they run the data center that stores the data!It was their fault 100\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</id>
	<title>Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>cookie23</author>
	<datestamp>1255637220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is hard for me to blame T-Mobile for the MS/Danger server / backups failure. Danger both makes the phones and runs the service, where as T-Mobile appear to be little more than common carriers and the customer service department. It is a bit unreasonable to suggest that T-Mobile could have prevented the outage. I mean it not like they could host the data somewhere else right? Sure they could have done a much better job handling the failure after it happened, much much better, but I just don't think they could have prevented it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is hard for me to blame T-Mobile for the MS/Danger server / backups failure .
Danger both makes the phones and runs the service , where as T-Mobile appear to be little more than common carriers and the customer service department .
It is a bit unreasonable to suggest that T-Mobile could have prevented the outage .
I mean it not like they could host the data somewhere else right ?
Sure they could have done a much better job handling the failure after it happened , much much better , but I just do n't think they could have prevented it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is hard for me to blame T-Mobile for the MS/Danger server / backups failure.
Danger both makes the phones and runs the service, where as T-Mobile appear to be little more than common carriers and the customer service department.
It is a bit unreasonable to suggest that T-Mobile could have prevented the outage.
I mean it not like they could host the data somewhere else right?
Sure they could have done a much better job handling the failure after it happened, much much better, but I just don't think they could have prevented it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761933</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1255599180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They make great hardware</p></div><p>*cough* RROD *cough*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They make great hardware * cough * RROD * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They make great hardware*cough* RROD *cough*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1255637220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?</p><p>Oh sorry, it's the bash MS article of the day. Please continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the editorializing in the summary ?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago .
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter ? Oh sorry , it 's the bash MS article of the day .
Please continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?Oh sorry, it's the bash MS article of the day.
Please continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765817</id>
	<title>Re:One thing and another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well to me, when you store it remotely at another service's servers, that IS the cloud...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well to me , when you store it remotely at another service 's servers , that IS the cloud.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well to me, when you store it remotely at another service's servers, that IS the cloud...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762947</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's reputation</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1255602960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Pink" project was a Microsoft creation based on their technology, NOT a Danger product.  It was the brainchild of Microsoft's Roz Ho.  Microsoft may have bought a terribly run company, but that happens all the time in the real world.  After a year and a half under the leadership of Microsoft, problems can no longer be blamed on the previous company's leadership.  Most of those people don't even work there anymore.  It's all on Microsoft's head.</p><p>The problem is not that the Danger division is run like a separate company.  The problem is that every little division of Microsoft is run like a separate company.  That's their biggest flaw, and they really need to get an effective leader (as in replace Steve Ballmer) who isn't afraid to fire anyone who is more concerned about protecting his/her own empire than with the good of the company.  That pretty much means replacing large swaths of the management hierarchy.  That's the only thing that will save Microsoft from eventual total failure.  That or a huge government bailout in twenty years for being "too big to fail".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Pink " project was a Microsoft creation based on their technology , NOT a Danger product .
It was the brainchild of Microsoft 's Roz Ho .
Microsoft may have bought a terribly run company , but that happens all the time in the real world .
After a year and a half under the leadership of Microsoft , problems can no longer be blamed on the previous company 's leadership .
Most of those people do n't even work there anymore .
It 's all on Microsoft 's head.The problem is not that the Danger division is run like a separate company .
The problem is that every little division of Microsoft is run like a separate company .
That 's their biggest flaw , and they really need to get an effective leader ( as in replace Steve Ballmer ) who is n't afraid to fire anyone who is more concerned about protecting his/her own empire than with the good of the company .
That pretty much means replacing large swaths of the management hierarchy .
That 's the only thing that will save Microsoft from eventual total failure .
That or a huge government bailout in twenty years for being " too big to fail " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Pink" project was a Microsoft creation based on their technology, NOT a Danger product.
It was the brainchild of Microsoft's Roz Ho.
Microsoft may have bought a terribly run company, but that happens all the time in the real world.
After a year and a half under the leadership of Microsoft, problems can no longer be blamed on the previous company's leadership.
Most of those people don't even work there anymore.
It's all on Microsoft's head.The problem is not that the Danger division is run like a separate company.
The problem is that every little division of Microsoft is run like a separate company.
That's their biggest flaw, and they really need to get an effective leader (as in replace Steve Ballmer) who isn't afraid to fire anyone who is more concerned about protecting his/her own empire than with the good of the company.
That pretty much means replacing large swaths of the management hierarchy.
That's the only thing that will save Microsoft from eventual total failure.
That or a huge government bailout in twenty years for being "too big to fail".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762341</id>
	<title>Slashdot is getting old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255600800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad I've started reading sites like PhysOrg.com instead. The endless political spin on every post is a bit tired just like everything else around here at Digg^h^h^h^hSlashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad I 've started reading sites like PhysOrg.com instead .
The endless political spin on every post is a bit tired just like everything else around here at Digg ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hSlashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad I've started reading sites like PhysOrg.com instead.
The endless political spin on every post is a bit tired just like everything else around here at Digg^h^h^h^hSlashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761673</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's reputation</title>
	<author>johnny cashed</author>
	<datestamp>1255597800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Wow, this is a terrible blow for Microsoft. This might make people think that they produce unreliable <b> and shoddy </b> products!</i>

<br> <br>
There, fixed that for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is a terrible blow for Microsoft .
This might make people think that they produce unreliable and shoddy products !
There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this is a terrible blow for Microsoft.
This might make people think that they produce unreliable  and shoddy  products!
There, fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762277</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>patrickthbold</author>
	<datestamp>1255600560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I google for things on Bing.</p></div><p>I bang things on google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I google for things on Bing.I bang things on google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I google for things on Bing.I bang things on google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415</id>
	<title>All data recovered?</title>
	<author>Carik</author>
	<datestamp>1255639800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So here's what confuses me... "BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected."  If all the data has been recovered, wouldn't NO ONE still be affected?  I mean... being affected by this means your data was lost in such a way that it couldn't be recovered.  So...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So here 's what confuses me... " BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data , but a minority are still affected .
" If all the data has been recovered , would n't NO ONE still be affected ?
I mean... being affected by this means your data was lost in such a way that it could n't be recovered .
So.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here's what confuses me... "BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected.
"  If all the data has been recovered, wouldn't NO ONE still be affected?
I mean... being affected by this means your data was lost in such a way that it couldn't be recovered.
So...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762991</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1255603260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You really don't see the connection?</p><p>Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".</p><p>Today, your data is lost.</p><p>Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.</p></div><p>The phrasing of this sounds chilling until one realizes that the main point here is that you still want to keep your own local copy.  The T-Mobile phones should have done that.  You should do that when creating documents on-line.</p><p>This is such a silly reason to vilify 'the cloud'.<br>
&nbsp; From where I sit, the problem started when some guy wearing a tie said "and the phones use the server exclusively to house the data!"   Dumb.  The 'cloud' shouldn't even be part of this discussion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do n't see the connection ? Yesterday , you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the " cloud " .Today , your data is lost.Tomorrow , the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.The phrasing of this sounds chilling until one realizes that the main point here is that you still want to keep your own local copy .
The T-Mobile phones should have done that .
You should do that when creating documents on-line.This is such a silly reason to vilify 'the cloud' .
  From where I sit , the problem started when some guy wearing a tie said " and the phones use the server exclusively to house the data !
" Dumb .
The 'cloud ' should n't even be part of this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really don't see the connection?Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".Today, your data is lost.Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.The phrasing of this sounds chilling until one realizes that the main point here is that you still want to keep your own local copy.
The T-Mobile phones should have done that.
You should do that when creating documents on-line.This is such a silly reason to vilify 'the cloud'.
  From where I sit, the problem started when some guy wearing a tie said "and the phones use the server exclusively to house the data!
"   Dumb.
The 'cloud' shouldn't even be part of this discussion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29767029</id>
	<title>correction</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1255693740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers)</i>"<br> <br>

correction: BBC news reports today that Microsoft claimed it has recovered all the data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data , but a minority are still affected ( out of 1 million subscribers ) " correction : BBC news reports today that Microsoft claimed it has recovered all the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers)" 

correction: BBC news reports today that Microsoft claimed it has recovered all the data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761807</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1255598460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands. But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either. Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up, just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.

How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7? C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire? Wire power. Feh! That wire could be going anywhere. Real men run their own generators!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
These are not quite the same.<br>
The kind of problem caused by poor backups is data loss, which is permanent.<br>
The kind of problem caused by poor power supply is power failure, which is (generally) temporary</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else 's hands .
But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either .
Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up , just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies .
How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7 ?
C'mon , you 're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire ?
Wire power .
Feh ! That wire could be going anywhere .
Real men run their own generators !
These are not quite the same .
The kind of problem caused by poor backups is data loss , which is permanent .
The kind of problem caused by poor power supply is power failure , which is ( generally ) temporary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands.
But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either.
Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up, just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.
How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7?
C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire?
Wire power.
Feh! That wire could be going anywhere.
Real men run their own generators!
These are not quite the same.
The kind of problem caused by poor backups is data loss, which is permanent.
The kind of problem caused by poor power supply is power failure, which is (generally) temporary
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762467</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>ZarathustraDK</author>
	<datestamp>1255601220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Sir or Madam,

The responsible Anti-Linux Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post. In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.<br> <br>

1. Assert that the poster is wrong because you think so (that ought to convince everyone, but if it fails go to 2)<br>
2. Call the poster a blind zealot (after all, religion and philosophy are the same thing and equally useless, right?)<br>
3. Explain how unable you are to survive as a programmer in a world where you can't sit on your code for infinity to make money by charging for that which can be copied for free (as programmers can't possibly do anything else in the IT-arena with their skills), and generally explain how your responsibility to your kids is somehow bigger than your responsibility to your kids + the rest of the world.<br>
4. Developers developers developers developers!<br>
5. Give a detailed anecdote about how you manage to run a Windows-program succesfully.<br>
6. Explain about how Microsoft is the dominant player on the market purely out of technical merit (nothing else of course).<br>
7. Finish up trying defuse the effect of future responses by "anticipating" their arrival. Sentences like "But this is Slashdot so I'm expecting to get modded down" are quite popular.<br> <br>

We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll. Please accept our apologies.

Sincerely,

Assistant Secretary,
Anti-Linux Trolling Association, Ltd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Sir or Madam , The responsible Anti-Linux Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post .
In lieu of that , attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses .
1. Assert that the poster is wrong because you think so ( that ought to convince everyone , but if it fails go to 2 ) 2 .
Call the poster a blind zealot ( after all , religion and philosophy are the same thing and equally useless , right ?
) 3 .
Explain how unable you are to survive as a programmer in a world where you ca n't sit on your code for infinity to make money by charging for that which can be copied for free ( as programmers ca n't possibly do anything else in the IT-arena with their skills ) , and generally explain how your responsibility to your kids is somehow bigger than your responsibility to your kids + the rest of the world .
4. Developers developers developers developers !
5. Give a detailed anecdote about how you manage to run a Windows-program succesfully .
6. Explain about how Microsoft is the dominant player on the market purely out of technical merit ( nothing else of course ) .
7. Finish up trying defuse the effect of future responses by " anticipating " their arrival .
Sentences like " But this is Slashdot so I 'm expecting to get modded down " are quite popular .
We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll .
Please accept our apologies .
Sincerely , Assistant Secretary , Anti-Linux Trolling Association , Ltd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Sir or Madam,

The responsible Anti-Linux Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post.
In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.
1. Assert that the poster is wrong because you think so (that ought to convince everyone, but if it fails go to 2)
2.
Call the poster a blind zealot (after all, religion and philosophy are the same thing and equally useless, right?
)
3.
Explain how unable you are to survive as a programmer in a world where you can't sit on your code for infinity to make money by charging for that which can be copied for free (as programmers can't possibly do anything else in the IT-arena with their skills), and generally explain how your responsibility to your kids is somehow bigger than your responsibility to your kids + the rest of the world.
4. Developers developers developers developers!
5. Give a detailed anecdote about how you manage to run a Windows-program succesfully.
6. Explain about how Microsoft is the dominant player on the market purely out of technical merit (nothing else of course).
7. Finish up trying defuse the effect of future responses by "anticipating" their arrival.
Sentences like "But this is Slashdot so I'm expecting to get modded down" are quite popular.
We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll.
Please accept our apologies.
Sincerely,

Assistant Secretary,
Anti-Linux Trolling Association, Ltd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761711</id>
	<title>Confirmation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255597980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone confirm that their data has been recovered?</p><p>Maybe I'm jaded, but I can imagine that this is just a way to settle down the s-storm until the media cycle moves on to another politician being found "on the appalacian Trail".</p><p>Anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone confirm that their data has been recovered ? Maybe I 'm jaded , but I can imagine that this is just a way to settle down the s-storm until the media cycle moves on to another politician being found " on the appalacian Trail " .Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone confirm that their data has been recovered?Maybe I'm jaded, but I can imagine that this is just a way to settle down the s-storm until the media cycle moves on to another politician being found "on the appalacian Trail".Anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761317</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1255639260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <b>Danger</b> both makes the phones and runs the service [...]</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You'd think that their name would at least give customers pause as to the <b>safety</b> of their data...  (Or, perhaps their name gives them some legal wiggle room?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Danger both makes the phones and runs the service [ ... ] You 'd think that their name would at least give customers pause as to the safety of their data... ( Or , perhaps their name gives them some legal wiggle room ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Danger both makes the phones and runs the service [...]
You'd think that their name would at least give customers pause as to the safety of their data...  (Or, perhaps their name gives them some legal wiggle room?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769169</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong wrong wrong!</title>
	<author>lwriemen</author>
	<datestamp>1255710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile bears responsibility for choosing Danger. Anyone who chooses a Microsoft server solution is taking on all the associated risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile bears responsibility for choosing Danger .
Anyone who chooses a Microsoft server solution is taking on all the associated risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile bears responsibility for choosing Danger.
Anyone who chooses a Microsoft server solution is taking on all the associated risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764423</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big difference? When your power is gone, you're out of business only until shortly after the power comes back on. When your data is gone... you're out of business, full stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big difference ?
When your power is gone , you 're out of business only until shortly after the power comes back on .
When your data is gone... you 're out of business , full stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big difference?
When your power is gone, you're out of business only until shortly after the power comes back on.
When your data is gone... you're out of business, full stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761163</id>
	<title>Simon Says The Moon Is Made Of Green Cheese</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger."</p><p>rename Microsoft to DangerOUS.</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger .
" rename Microsoft to DangerOUS.Yours In Ashgabat,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.
"rename Microsoft to DangerOUS.Yours In Ashgabat,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763193</id>
	<title>Not So Fast</title>
	<author>NuttyBee</author>
	<datestamp>1255604100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Sidekick.</p><p>I still, a week later, can't get e-mail on it.  My contacts were never lost, but the damn thing still doesn't work!  I'm getting tired of waiting.</p><p>My contract is up in August and I'm going to find a phone that stores everything locally AND a new provider.  I have learned my lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Sidekick.I still , a week later , ca n't get e-mail on it .
My contacts were never lost , but the damn thing still does n't work !
I 'm getting tired of waiting.My contract is up in August and I 'm going to find a phone that stores everything locally AND a new provider .
I have learned my lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Sidekick.I still, a week later, can't get e-mail on it.
My contacts were never lost, but the damn thing still doesn't work!
I'm getting tired of waiting.My contract is up in August and I'm going to find a phone that stores everything locally AND a new provider.
I have learned my lesson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763325</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255605000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Hey, thanks for the Car Analogy (TM)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Hey , thanks for the Car Analogy ( TM )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Hey, thanks for the Car Analogy (TM)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765419</id>
	<title>Re:All data recovered?</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1255622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ordinarily they would never have a situation where all their customers would simultaneously need access to all their data, so it's going to take time to propagate it out to everyone, and until that happens, people will still be affected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ordinarily they would never have a situation where all their customers would simultaneously need access to all their data , so it 's going to take time to propagate it out to everyone , and until that happens , people will still be affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ordinarily they would never have a situation where all their customers would simultaneously need access to all their data, so it's going to take time to propagate it out to everyone, and until that happens, people will still be affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1255637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're overstating your point.  Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster.  We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in.  Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure.  Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up?  No.</p><p>That being said, though, if a system is capable of losing this much data without an act of god, then a lot of people need to be fired.  With incremental backups, tests, and enough redundancy, it is nearly impossible to actually lose more than a couple days worth of data.</p><p>I agree with you about MS, though.  People really need to get it through their heads that Microsoft is one company among many.  They make great hardware (typing this on a Microsoft Natural keyboard), and excel is still best in class; on the other hand, they make a couple products I wouldn't be caught dead using.</p><p>On the bright side, I guess this should put the adage "Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft" to bed, eh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overstating your point .
Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format , having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster .
We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it , we do ( manually and automatically ) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in .
Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy ?
Sure. Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up ?
No.That being said , though , if a system is capable of losing this much data without an act of god , then a lot of people need to be fired .
With incremental backups , tests , and enough redundancy , it is nearly impossible to actually lose more than a couple days worth of data.I agree with you about MS , though .
People really need to get it through their heads that Microsoft is one company among many .
They make great hardware ( typing this on a Microsoft Natural keyboard ) , and excel is still best in class ; on the other hand , they make a couple products I would n't be caught dead using.On the bright side , I guess this should put the adage " Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft " to bed , eh ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overstating your point.
Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster.
We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in.
Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy?
Sure.  Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up?
No.That being said, though, if a system is capable of losing this much data without an act of god, then a lot of people need to be fired.
With incremental backups, tests, and enough redundancy, it is nearly impossible to actually lose more than a couple days worth of data.I agree with you about MS, though.
People really need to get it through their heads that Microsoft is one company among many.
They make great hardware (typing this on a Microsoft Natural keyboard), and excel is still best in class; on the other hand, they make a couple products I wouldn't be caught dead using.On the bright side, I guess this should put the adage "Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft" to bed, eh?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763569</id>
	<title>Sounds like JournalSpace</title>
	<author>QuestorTapes</author>
	<datestamp>1255606380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "The outage was caused by a system failure that created data loss in the core database and the back up,"<br>&gt; [Microsoft Corporate Vice President Roz Ho] wrote in an open letter to customers.</p><p>It sounds like their "backup" was a replica on another connected server.</p><p>No actual offline backups at all.</p><p>When JournalSpace was destroyed, one SlashDot thread was "Why Mirroring Is Not a Backup Solution".</p><p>My favorite comment was by JoelKatz:</p><p>&gt;&gt; The whole point of a backup is that it is *stable*. Neither copy is stable, so there is no<br>&gt;&gt; "backup on the hardware level". There are two active systems.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; If you cannot restore an accidentally-deleted file from it, it's not a backup.<br>&gt;&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if the active copy of the data is corrupted, there is no backup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " The outage was caused by a system failure that created data loss in the core database and the back up , " &gt; [ Microsoft Corporate Vice President Roz Ho ] wrote in an open letter to customers.It sounds like their " backup " was a replica on another connected server.No actual offline backups at all.When JournalSpace was destroyed , one SlashDot thread was " Why Mirroring Is Not a Backup Solution " .My favorite comment was by JoelKatz : &gt; &gt; The whole point of a backup is that it is * stable * .
Neither copy is stable , so there is no &gt; &gt; " backup on the hardware level " .
There are two active systems. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; If you can not restore an accidentally-deleted file from it , it 's not a backup. &gt; &gt; ... if the active copy of the data is corrupted , there is no backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "The outage was caused by a system failure that created data loss in the core database and the back up,"&gt; [Microsoft Corporate Vice President Roz Ho] wrote in an open letter to customers.It sounds like their "backup" was a replica on another connected server.No actual offline backups at all.When JournalSpace was destroyed, one SlashDot thread was "Why Mirroring Is Not a Backup Solution".My favorite comment was by JoelKatz:&gt;&gt; The whole point of a backup is that it is *stable*.
Neither copy is stable, so there is no&gt;&gt; "backup on the hardware level".
There are two active systems.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If you cannot restore an accidentally-deleted file from it, it's not a backup.&gt;&gt; ... if the active copy of the data is corrupted, there is no backup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761533</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1255597200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue has nothing to do with Microsoft. The issue has to do with a failure by T-Mobile with a vendor (that happens to be Microsoft). How T-Mobile ever approved a contract with the appropriate backup software, hardware, DR plan and testing is the bigger issue. Microsoft likely provided exactly the level of support that T-Mobile paid for, and I'm willing to bet that T-Mobile balked at these proposed charges from Microsoft and went with the cheaper option without the backup expenses. If your a CIO you use this as an example of why you pay for backup and disaster recovery services.</p><p>There are many backup and recovery products that work with Microsoft products just as their are for the various flavors of *nix. Best practices can and should be vendor neutral and your post is completely misguided. This should be a lesson learned for those involved in best practices and reckless management decisions. All that being said, Microsoft never should have agreed to a contract without the appropriate backup clauses in place. If microsoft did have those clauses in the contract, than they violated their contract in a very public way and you will be reading about the lawsuit from T-Mobile all too soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue has nothing to do with Microsoft .
The issue has to do with a failure by T-Mobile with a vendor ( that happens to be Microsoft ) .
How T-Mobile ever approved a contract with the appropriate backup software , hardware , DR plan and testing is the bigger issue .
Microsoft likely provided exactly the level of support that T-Mobile paid for , and I 'm willing to bet that T-Mobile balked at these proposed charges from Microsoft and went with the cheaper option without the backup expenses .
If your a CIO you use this as an example of why you pay for backup and disaster recovery services.There are many backup and recovery products that work with Microsoft products just as their are for the various flavors of * nix .
Best practices can and should be vendor neutral and your post is completely misguided .
This should be a lesson learned for those involved in best practices and reckless management decisions .
All that being said , Microsoft never should have agreed to a contract without the appropriate backup clauses in place .
If microsoft did have those clauses in the contract , than they violated their contract in a very public way and you will be reading about the lawsuit from T-Mobile all too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue has nothing to do with Microsoft.
The issue has to do with a failure by T-Mobile with a vendor (that happens to be Microsoft).
How T-Mobile ever approved a contract with the appropriate backup software, hardware, DR plan and testing is the bigger issue.
Microsoft likely provided exactly the level of support that T-Mobile paid for, and I'm willing to bet that T-Mobile balked at these proposed charges from Microsoft and went with the cheaper option without the backup expenses.
If your a CIO you use this as an example of why you pay for backup and disaster recovery services.There are many backup and recovery products that work with Microsoft products just as their are for the various flavors of *nix.
Best practices can and should be vendor neutral and your post is completely misguided.
This should be a lesson learned for those involved in best practices and reckless management decisions.
All that being said, Microsoft never should have agreed to a contract without the appropriate backup clauses in place.
If microsoft did have those clauses in the contract, than they violated their contract in a very public way and you will be reading about the lawsuit from T-Mobile all too soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762527</id>
	<title>Re:This is why you have press people</title>
	<author>jcoy42</author>
	<datestamp>1255601400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.</p></div><p>Why would they shoot them after spending all this money on training?  You don't think this has provided more experience than anything else ever could as far as when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut?</p><p>Seriously, it will probably result in a raise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>whoever said 'All data is lost ' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.Why would they shoot them after spending all this money on training ?
You do n't think this has provided more experience than anything else ever could as far as when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut ? Seriously , it will probably result in a raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.Why would they shoot them after spending all this money on training?
You don't think this has provided more experience than anything else ever could as far as when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut?Seriously, it will probably result in a raise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761741</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255598100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.</p></div><p>I don't see it. MS is one of those companies people either love or hate. The lovers will say "shit happens, move on" and the haters will say "I told you so". Sum tot = zip.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Microsoft , which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake , is paying the price with its reputation.I do n't see it .
MS is one of those companies people either love or hate .
The lovers will say " shit happens , move on " and the haters will say " I told you so " .
Sum tot = zip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.I don't see it.
MS is one of those companies people either love or hate.
The lovers will say "shit happens, move on" and the haters will say "I told you so".
Sum tot = zip.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765639</id>
	<title>Astrotrurf</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like every other cellular provider T-Mobile sells bandwidth and connectivity and nothing more.  It's true they should have inspected their partner more closely, especially when Microsoft acquired them, but the provision of data services is actually not within the scope of the things that they do.  Maybe after this bandwidth providers like T-Mobile, QWest, Sprint and AT&amp;T might consider the risks involved in third party data service providers, but that's tomorrow, not today.
</p><p>It's fair to say that people are bashing Microsoft here, but it's not fair to say that the bashing is unfair.  Microsoft bought the company and it's required that they do due diligence.  If they overlooked something, at closing it's still their fault.  That's what closing is about.  It's about transferring responsibility for future issues from the seller to the buyer.
</p><p>If this issue had arisen shortly after closing there might be some argument about this, but a year and a half is long enough to prove that the system was as advertised at time of sale.  So if Microsoft hosed it up afterward, that's their fault.  There is some evidence that it was working fine right up until Microsoft decided it needed to run on Microsoft technologies, at which point all indicators pointed south.
</p><p>I see that the MS blog center is all over this issue and I fully expect to be modded down repeatedly.  The hateful beatdown is already in progress on public sites like CNET. Hopefully there's been some education in the blog center about that, because it would be unfortunate to have to make this a crusade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like every other cellular provider T-Mobile sells bandwidth and connectivity and nothing more .
It 's true they should have inspected their partner more closely , especially when Microsoft acquired them , but the provision of data services is actually not within the scope of the things that they do .
Maybe after this bandwidth providers like T-Mobile , QWest , Sprint and AT&amp;T might consider the risks involved in third party data service providers , but that 's tomorrow , not today .
It 's fair to say that people are bashing Microsoft here , but it 's not fair to say that the bashing is unfair .
Microsoft bought the company and it 's required that they do due diligence .
If they overlooked something , at closing it 's still their fault .
That 's what closing is about .
It 's about transferring responsibility for future issues from the seller to the buyer .
If this issue had arisen shortly after closing there might be some argument about this , but a year and a half is long enough to prove that the system was as advertised at time of sale .
So if Microsoft hosed it up afterward , that 's their fault .
There is some evidence that it was working fine right up until Microsoft decided it needed to run on Microsoft technologies , at which point all indicators pointed south .
I see that the MS blog center is all over this issue and I fully expect to be modded down repeatedly .
The hateful beatdown is already in progress on public sites like CNET .
Hopefully there 's been some education in the blog center about that , because it would be unfortunate to have to make this a crusade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like every other cellular provider T-Mobile sells bandwidth and connectivity and nothing more.
It's true they should have inspected their partner more closely, especially when Microsoft acquired them, but the provision of data services is actually not within the scope of the things that they do.
Maybe after this bandwidth providers like T-Mobile, QWest, Sprint and AT&amp;T might consider the risks involved in third party data service providers, but that's tomorrow, not today.
It's fair to say that people are bashing Microsoft here, but it's not fair to say that the bashing is unfair.
Microsoft bought the company and it's required that they do due diligence.
If they overlooked something, at closing it's still their fault.
That's what closing is about.
It's about transferring responsibility for future issues from the seller to the buyer.
If this issue had arisen shortly after closing there might be some argument about this, but a year and a half is long enough to prove that the system was as advertised at time of sale.
So if Microsoft hosed it up afterward, that's their fault.
There is some evidence that it was working fine right up until Microsoft decided it needed to run on Microsoft technologies, at which point all indicators pointed south.
I see that the MS blog center is all over this issue and I fully expect to be modded down repeatedly.
The hateful beatdown is already in progress on public sites like CNET.
Hopefully there's been some education in the blog center about that, because it would be unfortunate to have to make this a crusade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761109</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>LMacG</author>
	<datestamp>1255638120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Johnny SidekickUser can't contract directly with Danger,  he has to deal with T-Mobile.  T-Mobile has some responsibility for making sure the service they're reselling operates as advertised.  This shouldn't be a "best-effort" service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Johnny SidekickUser ca n't contract directly with Danger , he has to deal with T-Mobile .
T-Mobile has some responsibility for making sure the service they 're reselling operates as advertised .
This should n't be a " best-effort " service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Johnny SidekickUser can't contract directly with Danger,  he has to deal with T-Mobile.
T-Mobile has some responsibility for making sure the service they're reselling operates as advertised.
This shouldn't be a "best-effort" service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766767</id>
	<title>Strategicly throwing a spanner in the works</title>
	<author>phelix\_da\_kat</author>
	<datestamp>1255688940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be honest...
As another blogger posted, MS's core competency is varpour-ware..

I think some of MS's alliances and product annoucements are more designed to hinder other competitors or technologies..</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest.. . As another blogger posted , MS 's core competency is varpour-ware. . I think some of MS 's alliances and product annoucements are more designed to hinder other competitors or technologies. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest...
As another blogger posted, MS's core competency is varpour-ware..

I think some of MS's alliances and product annoucements are more designed to hinder other competitors or technologies..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29780439</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1255778880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7? C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire? Wire power. Feh! That wire could be going anywhere. Real men run their own generators!</i><br>As I see it there are three options for power</p><p>1: local generators with an appropriate degree of redundancy<br>2: grid power only maybe with redundant links<br>3: both</p><p>Option 2 is not acceptable for anything that needs high reliability, So that leaves options 1 and 3, option 3 has higher capital costs but this is more than made up for by the fact that large scale generation is both more efficient and can use cheaper fuel so the running costs are lower.</p><p>I don't see any similarly compelling reasons to use cloud services as to use grid electricity. Especially if you have decided that you can't rely on cloud services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7 ?
C'mon , you 're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire ?
Wire power .
Feh ! That wire could be going anywhere .
Real men run their own generators ! As I see it there are three options for power1 : local generators with an appropriate degree of redundancy2 : grid power only maybe with redundant links3 : bothOption 2 is not acceptable for anything that needs high reliability , So that leaves options 1 and 3 , option 3 has higher capital costs but this is more than made up for by the fact that large scale generation is both more efficient and can use cheaper fuel so the running costs are lower.I do n't see any similarly compelling reasons to use cloud services as to use grid electricity .
Especially if you have decided that you ca n't rely on cloud services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7?
C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire?
Wire power.
Feh! That wire could be going anywhere.
Real men run their own generators!As I see it there are three options for power1: local generators with an appropriate degree of redundancy2: grid power only maybe with redundant links3: bothOption 2 is not acceptable for anything that needs high reliability, So that leaves options 1 and 3, option 3 has higher capital costs but this is more than made up for by the fact that large scale generation is both more efficient and can use cheaper fuel so the running costs are lower.I don't see any similarly compelling reasons to use cloud services as to use grid electricity.
Especially if you have decided that you can't rely on cloud services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761313</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1255639260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Storing all of your data and the lion's share of your processing on a remote machine, with only the bare minimum stored and run locally? Sounds a lot more like the past to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Storing all of your data and the lion 's share of your processing on a remote machine , with only the bare minimum stored and run locally ?
Sounds a lot more like the past to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Storing all of your data and the lion's share of your processing on a remote machine, with only the bare minimum stored and run locally?
Sounds a lot more like the past to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762117</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>tippe</author>
	<datestamp>1255600020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.  If T-Mobile is supplying you with this phone and this service (i.e., you pay T-Mobile every month for the priviledge of using this service, do you not?), then why shouldn't they also be responsible for failures and outages?  As a customer, I shouldn't need to care what they use as a back-end solution, and I certainly wouldn't accept "it's somebody else's screwup" as an excuse if something went wrong.  The fact that the failure happened in some back-end service provider's network and not in the T-Mobile network itself doesn't matter.  Presumably it was T-Mobil that chose this back end solution in the first place, and they (presumably) did the due diligence to make sure that their selection was up to their standards.  If they fucked up their due diligence, or didn't do due diligence at all, then they are as much responsible for the failure as MS/Danger is.  If they had done a better job picking their back-end provider, or at specifying the requirements of the system (i.e. specifying that a robust backup solution be used (and tested!) on all customer data), then this wouldn't have happened.  In that regard, T-Mobile definitely could have prevented this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
If T-Mobile is supplying you with this phone and this service ( i.e. , you pay T-Mobile every month for the priviledge of using this service , do you not ?
) , then why should n't they also be responsible for failures and outages ?
As a customer , I should n't need to care what they use as a back-end solution , and I certainly would n't accept " it 's somebody else 's screwup " as an excuse if something went wrong .
The fact that the failure happened in some back-end service provider 's network and not in the T-Mobile network itself does n't matter .
Presumably it was T-Mobil that chose this back end solution in the first place , and they ( presumably ) did the due diligence to make sure that their selection was up to their standards .
If they fucked up their due diligence , or did n't do due diligence at all , then they are as much responsible for the failure as MS/Danger is .
If they had done a better job picking their back-end provider , or at specifying the requirements of the system ( i.e .
specifying that a robust backup solution be used ( and tested !
) on all customer data ) , then this would n't have happened .
In that regard , T-Mobile definitely could have prevented this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
If T-Mobile is supplying you with this phone and this service (i.e., you pay T-Mobile every month for the priviledge of using this service, do you not?
), then why shouldn't they also be responsible for failures and outages?
As a customer, I shouldn't need to care what they use as a back-end solution, and I certainly wouldn't accept "it's somebody else's screwup" as an excuse if something went wrong.
The fact that the failure happened in some back-end service provider's network and not in the T-Mobile network itself doesn't matter.
Presumably it was T-Mobil that chose this back end solution in the first place, and they (presumably) did the due diligence to make sure that their selection was up to their standards.
If they fucked up their due diligence, or didn't do due diligence at all, then they are as much responsible for the failure as MS/Danger is.
If they had done a better job picking their back-end provider, or at specifying the requirements of the system (i.e.
specifying that a robust backup solution be used (and tested!
) on all customer data), then this wouldn't have happened.
In that regard, T-Mobile definitely could have prevented this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764929</id>
	<title>Re:This is why you have press people</title>
	<author>hawkingradiation</author>
	<datestamp>1255616700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so then persons should be shot who say that "All Sidekick data has been recovered" when the article says that "only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected" which may in fact mean that a sizeable number, say \_anywhere\_ between 1 and 1 million subscribers are still affected without being specific. Also the article says that Microsoft has, within a few days installed a more reliable backup system. Another poster commented that we should not be critical on Microsoft because they only purchased the company 18 months ago [therefore Microsoft did not have the proper amount of time to rectify the situation] yet the manage to find a solution. \_Somehow\_ with \_some\_ people on slashdot, Microsoft always manages to come up with a good defense for their actions even if it is the fact that "My MS software is working ok even though I am a hardcore Linux user" type posts. The meme on slashdot that because this is slashdot we should expect to see anti-MS posts is getting old. Please update your settings because the softies at Microsoft have taken over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so then persons should be shot who say that " All Sidekick data has been recovered " when the article says that " only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected " which may in fact mean that a sizeable number , say \ _anywhere \ _ between 1 and 1 million subscribers are still affected without being specific .
Also the article says that Microsoft has , within a few days installed a more reliable backup system .
Another poster commented that we should not be critical on Microsoft because they only purchased the company 18 months ago [ therefore Microsoft did not have the proper amount of time to rectify the situation ] yet the manage to find a solution .
\ _Somehow \ _ with \ _some \ _ people on slashdot , Microsoft always manages to come up with a good defense for their actions even if it is the fact that " My MS software is working ok even though I am a hardcore Linux user " type posts .
The meme on slashdot that because this is slashdot we should expect to see anti-MS posts is getting old .
Please update your settings because the softies at Microsoft have taken over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so then persons should be shot who say that "All Sidekick data has been recovered" when the article says that "only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected" which may in fact mean that a sizeable number, say \_anywhere\_ between 1 and 1 million subscribers are still affected without being specific.
Also the article says that Microsoft has, within a few days installed a more reliable backup system.
Another poster commented that we should not be critical on Microsoft because they only purchased the company 18 months ago [therefore Microsoft did not have the proper amount of time to rectify the situation] yet the manage to find a solution.
\_Somehow\_ with \_some\_ people on slashdot, Microsoft always manages to come up with a good defense for their actions even if it is the fact that "My MS software is working ok even though I am a hardcore Linux user" type posts.
The meme on slashdot that because this is slashdot we should expect to see anti-MS posts is getting old.
Please update your settings because the softies at Microsoft have taken over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762289</id>
	<title>Re:All data recovered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255600620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could recover my data, but manage to give me unusable hash instead of the half gig of pr^H^Hdelicious content that was saved, and instead of restoring my phone book, you could give me someone else's, complete with numbers like 1-777-SEXY-COW.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which turns out to be a bit of a shock as I realize that it's really a gay sex line, not girls that make the statement "Canadian Milkbags. Awriiiight." relevant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could recover my data , but manage to give me unusable hash instead of the half gig of pr ^ H ^ Hdelicious content that was saved , and instead of restoring my phone book , you could give me someone else 's , complete with numbers like 1-777-SEXY-COW .
... which turns out to be a bit of a shock as I realize that it 's really a gay sex line , not girls that make the statement " Canadian Milkbags .
Awriiiight. " relevant .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could recover my data, but manage to give me unusable hash instead of the half gig of pr^H^Hdelicious content that was saved, and instead of restoring my phone book, you could give me someone else's, complete with numbers like 1-777-SEXY-COW.
... which turns out to be a bit of a shock as I realize that it's really a gay sex line, not girls that make the statement "Canadian Milkbags.
Awriiiight." relevant.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763941</id>
	<title>Re:This is why you have press people</title>
	<author>omz</author>
	<datestamp>1255608540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Well, to be fair, whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.</i>
</p><p>
Just read the 10/10/2009 12:35 PM PDT official update from  T-Mobile and Microsoft:
</p><p>
<i>
"Dear valued T-Mobile Sidekick customers:
</i></p><p><i>
[...] Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger&rsquo;s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device &ndash; such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos &ndash; that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger."</i>
</p><p>
The entire update is reproduced <a href="http://www.hiptop3.com/archives/personal-information-lost" title="hiptop3.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [hiptop3.com] ( the official site with the original text was replaced with a more recent update ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to be fair , whoever said 'All data is lost ' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot .
Just read the 10/10/2009 12 : 35 PM PDT official update from T-Mobile and Microsoft : " Dear valued T-Mobile Sidekick customers : [ ... ] Regrettably , based on Microsoft/Danger    s latest recovery assessment of their systems , we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device    such as contacts , calendar entries , to-do lists or photos    that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger .
" The entire update is reproduced here [ hiptop3.com ] ( the official site with the original text was replaced with a more recent update ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Well, to be fair, whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.
Just read the 10/10/2009 12:35 PM PDT official update from  T-Mobile and Microsoft:


"Dear valued T-Mobile Sidekick customers:

[...] Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger’s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device – such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos – that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger.
"

The entire update is reproduced here [hiptop3.com] ( the official site with the original text was replaced with a more recent update ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761087</id>
	<title>Critics only *NOW* questioning MS's competence?!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years of BSODS.</p><p>Years of viruses.</p><p>Years of trojans.</p><p>Yet <b>THIS</b> "damages Microsoft's reputation"?!?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years of BSODS.Years of viruses.Years of trojans.Yet THIS " damages Microsoft 's reputation " ? ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years of BSODS.Years of viruses.Years of trojans.Yet THIS "damages Microsoft's reputation"?!?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761239</id>
	<title>MS has a reputation?</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1255638840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How could Microsoft damage their reputation? That's like saying George W Bush could be more inept. Once you're at rockbottom, you cannot go lower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How could Microsoft damage their reputation ?
That 's like saying George W Bush could be more inept .
Once you 're at rockbottom , you can not go lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could Microsoft damage their reputation?
That's like saying George W Bush could be more inept.
Once you're at rockbottom, you cannot go lower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</id>
	<title>said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1255637640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands. But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either. Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up, just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.</p><p>How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7? C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire? Wire power. Feh! That wire could be going anywhere. Real men run their own generators!</p><p>Sounds silly, right? Of course, that's only because we're used to power companies running like utilities, government-regulated monopolies allowed to exclusively service the public with a healthy, dependable profit in return for low rates and universal service. In such an environment having your own generators for anything other than emergencies is paranoia. But wow, you start deregulating things and let the businessmen go nuts and it almost seems like you'd have to.</p><p>The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady, sober, dependable service like a local utility, like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns, or like a fly-by-night dotcom. My personal opinion is that I don't trust these fuckers. Current company's situation is that we have a major software product we run our business on and the publisher got gobbled up by a bigger company and that company got gobbled up by a bigger one. The big company has decided to discontinue the product and have been slowly dismantling the team that supports it. We know we're going to have to make a jump eventually but the conglomerate could pull the plug tomorrow and we'd still be in operation. If it was a cloud app, we could be dead in the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else 's hands .
But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either .
Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up , just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7 ?
C'mon , you 're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire ?
Wire power .
Feh ! That wire could be going anywhere .
Real men run their own generators ! Sounds silly , right ?
Of course , that 's only because we 're used to power companies running like utilities , government-regulated monopolies allowed to exclusively service the public with a healthy , dependable profit in return for low rates and universal service .
In such an environment having your own generators for anything other than emergencies is paranoia .
But wow , you start deregulating things and let the businessmen go nuts and it almost seems like you 'd have to.The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady , sober , dependable service like a local utility , like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns , or like a fly-by-night dotcom .
My personal opinion is that I do n't trust these fuckers .
Current company 's situation is that we have a major software product we run our business on and the publisher got gobbled up by a bigger company and that company got gobbled up by a bigger one .
The big company has decided to discontinue the product and have been slowly dismantling the team that supports it .
We know we 're going to have to make a jump eventually but the conglomerate could pull the plug tomorrow and we 'd still be in operation .
If it was a cloud app , we could be dead in the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands.
But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either.
Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up, just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7?
C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire?
Wire power.
Feh! That wire could be going anywhere.
Real men run their own generators!Sounds silly, right?
Of course, that's only because we're used to power companies running like utilities, government-regulated monopolies allowed to exclusively service the public with a healthy, dependable profit in return for low rates and universal service.
In such an environment having your own generators for anything other than emergencies is paranoia.
But wow, you start deregulating things and let the businessmen go nuts and it almost seems like you'd have to.The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady, sober, dependable service like a local utility, like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns, or like a fly-by-night dotcom.
My personal opinion is that I don't trust these fuckers.
Current company's situation is that we have a major software product we run our business on and the publisher got gobbled up by a bigger company and that company got gobbled up by a bigger one.
The big company has decided to discontinue the product and have been slowly dismantling the team that supports it.
We know we're going to have to make a jump eventually but the conglomerate could pull the plug tomorrow and we'd still be in operation.
If it was a cloud app, we could be dead in the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766975</id>
	<title>Reputation?</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1255692780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price <b>with its reputation</b>"</i></p><p>Just out of curiosity, what reputation might that be?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But Microsoft , which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake , is paying the price with its reputation " Just out of curiosity , what reputation might that be ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation"Just out of curiosity, what reputation might that be?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769473</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>greed</author>
	<datestamp>1255712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been there....</p><p>I'm the cynical UNIX bastard, and have been for 15 years now.  I started my current job about 10 years ago, on the strength of my UNIX scripting, trouble-shooting, and ad-hoc admin skills.  And being able to run the most effective test lab in the previous company with hardly any budget.  (A LOT of scrap machines from other departments can be very useful... if you can distribute the workload.)</p><p>Anyway.  So the new company wants to try out ClearCase.  And try it properly: deployment, usage, disaster recovery, everything.  So the guy in charge of the IT backup systems says, "We've got the backups working just fine!"</p><p>And I ask, "How about the restore?"</p><p>And everyone laughs.  Except me.  And my manager looks... and thinks... and says, "OK, so what about the restore?"</p><p>"We don't need to try that, it's working."</p><p>My manager insists.</p><p>Next status meeting:  "So how did the restore go?"</p><p>"Well, we're having some trouble with it...."</p><p>I tried not to be smug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been there....I 'm the cynical UNIX bastard , and have been for 15 years now .
I started my current job about 10 years ago , on the strength of my UNIX scripting , trouble-shooting , and ad-hoc admin skills .
And being able to run the most effective test lab in the previous company with hardly any budget .
( A LOT of scrap machines from other departments can be very useful... if you can distribute the workload. ) Anyway .
So the new company wants to try out ClearCase .
And try it properly : deployment , usage , disaster recovery , everything .
So the guy in charge of the IT backup systems says , " We 've got the backups working just fine !
" And I ask , " How about the restore ?
" And everyone laughs .
Except me .
And my manager looks... and thinks... and says , " OK , so what about the restore ?
" " We do n't need to try that , it 's working .
" My manager insists.Next status meeting : " So how did the restore go ?
" " Well , we 're having some trouble with it.... " I tried not to be smug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been there....I'm the cynical UNIX bastard, and have been for 15 years now.
I started my current job about 10 years ago, on the strength of my UNIX scripting, trouble-shooting, and ad-hoc admin skills.
And being able to run the most effective test lab in the previous company with hardly any budget.
(A LOT of scrap machines from other departments can be very useful... if you can distribute the workload.)Anyway.
So the new company wants to try out ClearCase.
And try it properly: deployment, usage, disaster recovery, everything.
So the guy in charge of the IT backup systems says, "We've got the backups working just fine!
"And I ask, "How about the restore?
"And everyone laughs.
Except me.
And my manager looks... and thinks... and says, "OK, so what about the restore?
""We don't need to try that, it's working.
"My manager insists.Next status meeting:  "So how did the restore go?
""Well, we're having some trouble with it...."I tried not to be smug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761297</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's reputation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255639200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Danger wrote and created the solution. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they walked into a terribly run company though.</p><p>Not only did they screw this up, but they also screwed up the reason that Microsoft bought them--their "Pink" project. It's probably about time to cut that entire company loose.  Even <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/12/microsofts\_sidekick\_pink\_problems\_blamed\_on\_dogfooding\_and\_sabotage.html" title="appleinsider.com" rel="nofollow">AppleInsider claims it may be sabotage</a> [appleinsider.com], and AppleInsider takes every chance to knock Microsoft down a few pegs (and does in the paragraphs leading up to it).</p><p>I don't know what went wrong, but something tells me that a poor implementation was at the root of it and the "Danger" division was to blame. I imagine they are run like a separate division, rather than one big happy family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Danger wrote and created the solution .
Unfortunately for Microsoft , they walked into a terribly run company though.Not only did they screw this up , but they also screwed up the reason that Microsoft bought them--their " Pink " project .
It 's probably about time to cut that entire company loose .
Even AppleInsider claims it may be sabotage [ appleinsider.com ] , and AppleInsider takes every chance to knock Microsoft down a few pegs ( and does in the paragraphs leading up to it ) .I do n't know what went wrong , but something tells me that a poor implementation was at the root of it and the " Danger " division was to blame .
I imagine they are run like a separate division , rather than one big happy family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Danger wrote and created the solution.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they walked into a terribly run company though.Not only did they screw this up, but they also screwed up the reason that Microsoft bought them--their "Pink" project.
It's probably about time to cut that entire company loose.
Even AppleInsider claims it may be sabotage [appleinsider.com], and AppleInsider takes every chance to knock Microsoft down a few pegs (and does in the paragraphs leading up to it).I don't know what went wrong, but something tells me that a poor implementation was at the root of it and the "Danger" division was to blame.
I imagine they are run like a separate division, rather than one big happy family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765135</id>
	<title>If you only knew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to work on a team at Microsoft who heavily relied on the services of the data center, and if you only knew the shenanigans and the complete incompetence of some of the people responsible for some of the servers, you'd realize that not even Microsoft is immune from stupid admins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work on a team at Microsoft who heavily relied on the services of the data center , and if you only knew the shenanigans and the complete incompetence of some of the people responsible for some of the servers , you 'd realize that not even Microsoft is immune from stupid admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work on a team at Microsoft who heavily relied on the services of the data center, and if you only knew the shenanigans and the complete incompetence of some of the people responsible for some of the servers, you'd realize that not even Microsoft is immune from stupid admins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's the future bro</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.  I'll keep my data in-house thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the future bro Perhaps for people who do n't care about their data... Privacy , security , accountability and reliability can not be ensured by a third party .
I 'll keep my data in-house thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the future bro

Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.
I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941</id>
	<title>Microsoft's reputation</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1255637220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow, this is a terrible blow for Microsoft.  This might make people think that they produce unreliable products!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Microsoft , which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake , is paying the price with its reputation.Wow , this is a terrible blow for Microsoft .
This might make people think that they produce unreliable products !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.Wow, this is a terrible blow for Microsoft.
This might make people think that they produce unreliable products!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761077</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p><p>The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post. In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.</p><p>1. Make a general anti-Microsoft jab<br>2. Blame Microsoft for it's stance against Free Software (and also for lack of network neutrality, the current state of patent laws, the Iraq war, and the extinction of the dinosaurs)<br>3. Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee. If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance, accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach<br>4. State that the Linux revolution is inevitable<br>5. Finish off with another outpour of flames</p><p>We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll. Please accept our apologies.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Assistant Secretary,<br>Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association, Ltd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Sir or Madam,The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post .
In lieu of that , attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.1 .
Make a general anti-Microsoft jab2 .
Blame Microsoft for it 's stance against Free Software ( and also for lack of network neutrality , the current state of patent laws , the Iraq war , and the extinction of the dinosaurs ) 3 .
Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee .
If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft 's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance , accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach4 .
State that the Linux revolution is inevitable5 .
Finish off with another outpour of flamesWe hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll .
Please accept our apologies.Sincerely,Assistant Secretary,Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association , Ltd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Sir or Madam,The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post.
In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.1.
Make a general anti-Microsoft jab2.
Blame Microsoft for it's stance against Free Software (and also for lack of network neutrality, the current state of patent laws, the Iraq war, and the extinction of the dinosaurs)3.
Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee.
If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance, accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach4.
State that the Linux revolution is inevitable5.
Finish off with another outpour of flamesWe hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll.
Please accept our apologies.Sincerely,Assistant Secretary,Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association, Ltd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766407</id>
	<title>Re:One thing and another</title>
	<author>Mike1024</author>
	<datestamp>1255725840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.<br>Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.</p></div><p>There could be other reasons - despite the obvious backup failure in this story, I'd imagine sidekick users who lose their phones appreciate not losing their data along with it.</p><p>Additionally, if someone with important information on their device were to lose their device, I can see how you might prefer it if it didn't come with an SD card full of confidential documents and e-mails. Sure, it would be nice if you could get users to use encryption on their devices, but I only know one person who uses the 'security pin' feature of their smartphone, and even he only has a 4-numeric-digit PIN set; users haven't accepted strong passwords on their smartphones, and remote wipe is the second-best thing.</p><p>I mean, from the perspective of the enterprise market that BlackBerry etc serve, those would seem like pretty useful features to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we see here is a small device storing it 's data remotely and I wonder why.Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing , having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.There could be other reasons - despite the obvious backup failure in this story , I 'd imagine sidekick users who lose their phones appreciate not losing their data along with it.Additionally , if someone with important information on their device were to lose their device , I can see how you might prefer it if it did n't come with an SD card full of confidential documents and e-mails .
Sure , it would be nice if you could get users to use encryption on their devices , but I only know one person who uses the 'security pin ' feature of their smartphone , and even he only has a 4-numeric-digit PIN set ; users have n't accepted strong passwords on their smartphones , and remote wipe is the second-best thing.I mean , from the perspective of the enterprise market that BlackBerry etc serve , those would seem like pretty useful features to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.There could be other reasons - despite the obvious backup failure in this story, I'd imagine sidekick users who lose their phones appreciate not losing their data along with it.Additionally, if someone with important information on their device were to lose their device, I can see how you might prefer it if it didn't come with an SD card full of confidential documents and e-mails.
Sure, it would be nice if you could get users to use encryption on their devices, but I only know one person who uses the 'security pin' feature of their smartphone, and even he only has a 4-numeric-digit PIN set; users haven't accepted strong passwords on their smartphones, and remote wipe is the second-best thing.I mean, from the perspective of the enterprise market that BlackBerry etc serve, those would seem like pretty useful features to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764893</id>
	<title>Re:One thing and another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255616340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My girlfriend got a new tmobile phone a few weeks back. They basically transferred contacts/data to the new one at the checkout counter with a couple keystrokes. I think this is the practical value they had in mind with remote storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My girlfriend got a new tmobile phone a few weeks back .
They basically transferred contacts/data to the new one at the checkout counter with a couple keystrokes .
I think this is the practical value they had in mind with remote storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My girlfriend got a new tmobile phone a few weeks back.
They basically transferred contacts/data to the new one at the checkout counter with a couple keystrokes.
I think this is the practical value they had in mind with remote storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765747</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's reputation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even knowthat Microsoft was involved with the sidekick until this story broke...Microsoft is going to be unscathed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even knowthat Microsoft was involved with the sidekick until this story broke...Microsoft is going to be unscathed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even knowthat Microsoft was involved with the sidekick until this story broke...Microsoft is going to be unscathed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760909</id>
	<title>Gotta PATCH SQL 2008 NOW !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get to it M$FT !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get to it M $ FT !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get to it M$FT !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762071</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting in Microsoft's servers? Hah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255599840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HP servers running Unix. Hitachi SAN. Oracle RAC. Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HP servers running Unix .
Hitachi SAN .
Oracle RAC .
Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HP servers running Unix.
Hitachi SAN.
Oracle RAC.
Java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?</i></p><p>So... in a <b>year and a half</b> they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:</p><p>1) Updated server software</p><p>2) Firewalls</p><p>3) Backups</p><p>And other "yer an idjit if you don't do this" kinda stuff?</p><p>For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance. And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE? Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?</p><p><b>This isn't about bashing Microsoft - highly successful businesses have had to close shop forever due to glaring, horrid oversights like this. This is gross incompetence.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the editorializing in the summary ?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago .
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter ? So... in a year and a half they should n't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like : 1 ) Updated server software2 ) Firewalls3 ) BackupsAnd other " yer an idjit if you do n't do this " kinda stuff ? For * any * kind of hosted service , having backups measures just slightly below " is it turned on " in terms of importance .
And for a year and a half , NONE WERE DONE ?
Further , they did a major update to a SAN and did n't backup first ? This is n't about bashing Microsoft - highly successful businesses have had to close shop forever due to glaring , horrid oversights like this .
This is gross incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:1) Updated server software2) Firewalls3) BackupsAnd other "yer an idjit if you don't do this" kinda stuff?For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance.
And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE?
Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?This isn't about bashing Microsoft - highly successful businesses have had to close shop forever due to glaring, horrid oversights like this.
This is gross incompetence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761277</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255639080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?</i></p><p>You must be new here.</p><p><i>Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.</i></p><p>A year and a half later and they don't have a handle on it? Someone's getting paid WAY too much.</p><p><i>What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing</i></p><p>Nothing to do with office (unless they're using Access, which would explain the data loss), but "cloud computing" is what a couple here have more logically and less buzzwordily renamed "OPS" -- Other People's Servers. This is EXACTLY what "cloud computing" is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the editorializing in the summary ? You must be new here.Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.A year and a half later and they do n't have a handle on it ?
Someone 's getting paid WAY too much.What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computingNothing to do with office ( unless they 're using Access , which would explain the data loss ) , but " cloud computing " is what a couple here have more logically and less buzzwordily renamed " OPS " -- Other People 's Servers .
This is EXACTLY what " cloud computing " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?You must be new here.Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.A year and a half later and they don't have a handle on it?
Someone's getting paid WAY too much.What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computingNothing to do with office (unless they're using Access, which would explain the data loss), but "cloud computing" is what a couple here have more logically and less buzzwordily renamed "OPS" -- Other People's Servers.
This is EXACTLY what "cloud computing" is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761907</id>
	<title>Danger? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255599060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who decides that a server farm called "Danger" is a safe place to store backups?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who decides that a server farm called " Danger " is a safe place to store backups ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who decides that a server farm called "Danger" is a safe place to store backups?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761253</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting in Microsoft's servers? Hah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's not as if Google's Loonix servers have ever had downtime... Oh wait.  Haven't there been like 3 or 4 downtimes on Gmail just in the last few months? LOLOLOLOLOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's not as if Google 's Loonix servers have ever had downtime... Oh wait .
Have n't there been like 3 or 4 downtimes on Gmail just in the last few months ?
LOLOLOLOLOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's not as if Google's Loonix servers have ever had downtime... Oh wait.
Haven't there been like 3 or 4 downtimes on Gmail just in the last few months?
LOLOLOLOLOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764327</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1255611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, since this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you take your car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic botches the job.</p></div><p>Yeah, that sounds about right.  That's why I try to do my own oil changes when I can.</p><p>The worst, though, is the state inspection.  Without fail, something always seems to fail after one of those for me.  Next time I'm going to demand they let me watch the work being done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since this is /. , you take your car in for a routine oil change .
The mechanic botches the job.Yeah , that sounds about right .
That 's why I try to do my own oil changes when I can.The worst , though , is the state inspection .
Without fail , something always seems to fail after one of those for me .
Next time I 'm going to demand they let me watch the work being done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change.
The mechanic botches the job.Yeah, that sounds about right.
That's why I try to do my own oil changes when I can.The worst, though, is the state inspection.
Without fail, something always seems to fail after one of those for me.
Next time I'm going to demand they let me watch the work being done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765291</id>
	<title>Brilliant strategy?</title>
	<author>sglewis100</author>
	<datestamp>1255620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this is really true, but if I were a conspiracy nut - I might consider this a brilliant move by Microsoft. They get the data back (insulation from lawsuits) yet manage to scare people away from the biggest threat to their market share in decades - the cloud! Don't put your email onto GoogleApps - buy Exchange, retain control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is really true , but if I were a conspiracy nut - I might consider this a brilliant move by Microsoft .
They get the data back ( insulation from lawsuits ) yet manage to scare people away from the biggest threat to their market share in decades - the cloud !
Do n't put your email onto GoogleApps - buy Exchange , retain control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is really true, but if I were a conspiracy nut - I might consider this a brilliant move by Microsoft.
They get the data back (insulation from lawsuits) yet manage to scare people away from the biggest threat to their market share in decades - the cloud!
Don't put your email onto GoogleApps - buy Exchange, retain control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</id>
	<title>This is why you have press people</title>
	<author>SuiteSisterMary</author>
	<datestamp>1255637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, to be fair, whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.  They should have said 'We're looking in to how long it will take to restore data, and to see if there will be any problems' and left it at that for a few days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to be fair , whoever said 'All data is lost ' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot .
They should have said 'We 're looking in to how long it will take to restore data , and to see if there will be any problems ' and left it at that for a few days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to be fair, whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot.
They should have said 'We're looking in to how long it will take to restore data, and to see if there will be any problems' and left it at that for a few days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765363</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>it's the future bro</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.  I'll keep my data in-house thank you.</p></div><p>In theory it could. The problem today is that the risk is borne entirely by the consumer while it should be the other way 'round. The day a consumer can hold the provider financially liable for any loss of data or leak of secure information is the day cloud computing will really take off. But it won't be with any of the current players as it will require a rock solid reputation. Maybe the Pirate Party guys should take the hint from Doctorows' "Little Brother" and begin offering cloud services ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the future broPerhaps for people who do n't care about their data... Privacy , security , accountability and reliability can not be ensured by a third party .
I 'll keep my data in-house thank you.In theory it could .
The problem today is that the risk is borne entirely by the consumer while it should be the other way 'round .
The day a consumer can hold the provider financially liable for any loss of data or leak of secure information is the day cloud computing will really take off .
But it wo n't be with any of the current players as it will require a rock solid reputation .
Maybe the Pirate Party guys should take the hint from Doctorows ' " Little Brother " and begin offering cloud services ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the future broPerhaps for people who don't care about their data...  Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.
I'll keep my data in-house thank you.In theory it could.
The problem today is that the risk is borne entirely by the consumer while it should be the other way 'round.
The day a consumer can hold the provider financially liable for any loss of data or leak of secure information is the day cloud computing will really take off.
But it won't be with any of the current players as it will require a rock solid reputation.
Maybe the Pirate Party guys should take the hint from Doctorows' "Little Brother" and begin offering cloud services ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29768233</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't buzz me bro!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buzz me bro !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buzz me bro!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763963</id>
	<title>Re:left it at that for a few days</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1255608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I disagree - it is better public relations to 'take a dump' in one quick hit, and hope that it doesn't make too much of a splash. Otherwise you sit around for a week until a slow news day comes, and your story ends up on the front page, while the customers get more nervous.
</p><p>
By getting out the bad news early, anything that happens (like a partial recovery of data in this case) looks like good news, so that reputation can be partly salvaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree - it is better public relations to 'take a dump ' in one quick hit , and hope that it does n't make too much of a splash .
Otherwise you sit around for a week until a slow news day comes , and your story ends up on the front page , while the customers get more nervous .
By getting out the bad news early , anything that happens ( like a partial recovery of data in this case ) looks like good news , so that reputation can be partly salvaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I disagree - it is better public relations to 'take a dump' in one quick hit, and hope that it doesn't make too much of a splash.
Otherwise you sit around for a week until a slow news day comes, and your story ends up on the front page, while the customers get more nervous.
By getting out the bad news early, anything that happens (like a partial recovery of data in this case) looks like good news, so that reputation can be partly salvaged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761347</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255639440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have not had this problem in their first 8 years.  Then, 18 months after Microsoft acquires them, they have a critical failure.  You think that's all coincidence?</p><p>I suppose it's possible for one company to buy another and leave the company alone, but Microsoft certainly didn't do this.  They moved most of the developers to Project Pink (and most of them have left MS entirely by now).  I think it's pretty clear that the new MS was responsible.  They managed the company.  The data was stored at Microsoft's data centers.</p><p>Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to sell people on the idea that their data should be hosted at Microsoft data centers.  Am I not supposed to be skeptical about this now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have not had this problem in their first 8 years .
Then , 18 months after Microsoft acquires them , they have a critical failure .
You think that 's all coincidence ? I suppose it 's possible for one company to buy another and leave the company alone , but Microsoft certainly did n't do this .
They moved most of the developers to Project Pink ( and most of them have left MS entirely by now ) .
I think it 's pretty clear that the new MS was responsible .
They managed the company .
The data was stored at Microsoft 's data centers.Meanwhile , Microsoft is trying to sell people on the idea that their data should be hosted at Microsoft data centers .
Am I not supposed to be skeptical about this now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have not had this problem in their first 8 years.
Then, 18 months after Microsoft acquires them, they have a critical failure.
You think that's all coincidence?I suppose it's possible for one company to buy another and leave the company alone, but Microsoft certainly didn't do this.
They moved most of the developers to Project Pink (and most of them have left MS entirely by now).
I think it's pretty clear that the new MS was responsible.
They managed the company.
The data was stored at Microsoft's data centers.Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to sell people on the idea that their data should be hosted at Microsoft data centers.
Am I not supposed to be skeptical about this now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764489</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:</p><p>1) Updated server software</p><p>2) Firewalls</p><p>3) Backups</p></div><p>As someone who was in a company that was acquired, I'm still trying to get rid of the old stuff four years after the fact.</p><p>Once an acquisition occurs, and the revenue starts being collected, none of the higher-up visionaries care about the low-level details of actually retiring or integrating things. The big things get done (e-mail accounts, logins), but there's generally no funding for many others (we're only now upgrading our LTO-1 library running of off an IRIX 6.5 server).</p><p>Microsoft bought Danger for their people and products. The sys admins that ran the infrastructure were probably the first to be axed after the acquisition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... in a year and a half they should n't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like : 1 ) Updated server software2 ) Firewalls3 ) BackupsAs someone who was in a company that was acquired , I 'm still trying to get rid of the old stuff four years after the fact.Once an acquisition occurs , and the revenue starts being collected , none of the higher-up visionaries care about the low-level details of actually retiring or integrating things .
The big things get done ( e-mail accounts , logins ) , but there 's generally no funding for many others ( we 're only now upgrading our LTO-1 library running of off an IRIX 6.5 server ) .Microsoft bought Danger for their people and products .
The sys admins that ran the infrastructure were probably the first to be axed after the acquisition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:1) Updated server software2) Firewalls3) BackupsAs someone who was in a company that was acquired, I'm still trying to get rid of the old stuff four years after the fact.Once an acquisition occurs, and the revenue starts being collected, none of the higher-up visionaries care about the low-level details of actually retiring or integrating things.
The big things get done (e-mail accounts, logins), but there's generally no funding for many others (we're only now upgrading our LTO-1 library running of off an IRIX 6.5 server).Microsoft bought Danger for their people and products.
The sys admins that ran the infrastructure were probably the first to be axed after the acquisition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761281</id>
	<title>Microsoft? No.</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1255639080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see this as having a big effect on Microsoft. T-Mobile on the other hand....
<br>
I don't believe that customers care if your services providers have problems. They have an agreement with you, not your providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this as having a big effect on Microsoft .
T-Mobile on the other hand... . I do n't believe that customers care if your services providers have problems .
They have an agreement with you , not your providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this as having a big effect on Microsoft.
T-Mobile on the other hand....

I don't believe that customers care if your services providers have problems.
They have an agreement with you, not your providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765143</id>
	<title>Cloud doesn't mean you rely on outsiders</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255618860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google does not rely on outside providers and they're the index case for cloud computing.  You can roll your own cloud and Mark Shuttleworth at Ubuntu is working on that for you.  If you do it right you can build your own cloud.  What third party clouds offer you in that case is on-demand compute resources and bandwidth.
</p><p>The cloud thing is going to happen but a lot of people don't understand what it is.  It doesn't mean giving up control of your data.  It doesn't mean giving up control of your interface.  What it does is provide on-demand compute and bandwidth resources for spikes in demand.  A cloud hosting provider can absorb excess demand for access to your data by absorbing spikes in demand until you have time to buy, receive and provision servers to support that demand.  It's like an insurance policy against the sudden growth we all know happens when you do the right stuff.
</p><p>Nobody in their right mind would host all their data on a third party's cloud.  But cloud providers DO provide a valuable and necessary service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does not rely on outside providers and they 're the index case for cloud computing .
You can roll your own cloud and Mark Shuttleworth at Ubuntu is working on that for you .
If you do it right you can build your own cloud .
What third party clouds offer you in that case is on-demand compute resources and bandwidth .
The cloud thing is going to happen but a lot of people do n't understand what it is .
It does n't mean giving up control of your data .
It does n't mean giving up control of your interface .
What it does is provide on-demand compute and bandwidth resources for spikes in demand .
A cloud hosting provider can absorb excess demand for access to your data by absorbing spikes in demand until you have time to buy , receive and provision servers to support that demand .
It 's like an insurance policy against the sudden growth we all know happens when you do the right stuff .
Nobody in their right mind would host all their data on a third party 's cloud .
But cloud providers DO provide a valuable and necessary service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does not rely on outside providers and they're the index case for cloud computing.
You can roll your own cloud and Mark Shuttleworth at Ubuntu is working on that for you.
If you do it right you can build your own cloud.
What third party clouds offer you in that case is on-demand compute resources and bandwidth.
The cloud thing is going to happen but a lot of people don't understand what it is.
It doesn't mean giving up control of your data.
It doesn't mean giving up control of your interface.
What it does is provide on-demand compute and bandwidth resources for spikes in demand.
A cloud hosting provider can absorb excess demand for access to your data by absorbing spikes in demand until you have time to buy, receive and provision servers to support that demand.
It's like an insurance policy against the sudden growth we all know happens when you do the right stuff.
Nobody in their right mind would host all their data on a third party's cloud.
But cloud providers DO provide a valuable and necessary service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really don't see the connection?</p><p>Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".</p><p>Today, your data is lost.</p><p>Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.</p><p>Well, since this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you take your car in for a routine oil change.  The mechanic botches the job.</p><p>Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do n't see the connection ? Yesterday , you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the " cloud " .Today , your data is lost.Tomorrow , the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.Well , since this is /. , you take your car in for a routine oil change .
The mechanic botches the job.Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really don't see the connection?Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".Today, your data is lost.Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change.
The mechanic botches the job.Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760887</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet apple never would have made this mistake.........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet apple never would have made this mistake........ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet apple never would have made this mistake.........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761295</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1255639200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are ultimately responsible.

Personally, I want to hear a recording of the conference call that went on in this maintenance window.  I bet the "oh shit" moment was pretty intense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are ultimately responsible .
Personally , I want to hear a recording of the conference call that went on in this maintenance window .
I bet the " oh shit " moment was pretty intense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are ultimately responsible.
Personally, I want to hear a recording of the conference call that went on in this maintenance window.
I bet the "oh shit" moment was pretty intense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761543</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>jeffyboz</author>
	<datestamp>1255597260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?</p><p>Oh sorry, it's the bash MS article of the day. Please continue.</p></div><p>Ugggh, if you can't stand the bash-wagon, get off the bus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the editorializing in the summary ?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago .
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter ? Oh sorry , it 's the bash MS article of the day .
Please continue.Ugggh , if you ca n't stand the bash-wagon , get off the bus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?Oh sorry, it's the bash MS article of the day.
Please continue.Ugggh, if you can't stand the bash-wagon, get off the bus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762029</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255599600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance. And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE? Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?</i></p><p>That's not what happened... of course they were doing backups.  Apparently the issue (still stupid, but slightly less so) is that a backup started *while* they were updating the SAN, so the backup got corrupted.  And also stupid, apparently they didn't have a very recent backup of the backup...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For * any * kind of hosted service , having backups measures just slightly below " is it turned on " in terms of importance .
And for a year and a half , NONE WERE DONE ?
Further , they did a major update to a SAN and did n't backup first ? That 's not what happened... of course they were doing backups .
Apparently the issue ( still stupid , but slightly less so ) is that a backup started * while * they were updating the SAN , so the backup got corrupted .
And also stupid , apparently they did n't have a very recent backup of the backup.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance.
And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE?
Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?That's not what happened... of course they were doing backups.
Apparently the issue (still stupid, but slightly less so) is that a backup started *while* they were updating the SAN, so the backup got corrupted.
And also stupid, apparently they didn't have a very recent backup of the backup...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765259</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1255620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being part of a company that was recently acquired I have some insight.  Our conversion plan is absurdly aggressive and we're still looking at 6 months.  The buying company won't come in, see your problems, and ask you to fix them with your own processes before converting you.  Rather the buying company will come in, see what you have, and figure out how to merge it with their own systems/processes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being part of a company that was recently acquired I have some insight .
Our conversion plan is absurdly aggressive and we 're still looking at 6 months .
The buying company wo n't come in , see your problems , and ask you to fix them with your own processes before converting you .
Rather the buying company will come in , see what you have , and figure out how to merge it with their own systems/processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being part of a company that was recently acquired I have some insight.
Our conversion plan is absurdly aggressive and we're still looking at 6 months.
The buying company won't come in, see your problems, and ask you to fix them with your own processes before converting you.
Rather the buying company will come in, see what you have, and figure out how to merge it with their own systems/processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762073</id>
	<title>The touch of Microsoft.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1255599840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft sure seams to have a wicked spell of utter incompetence cast upon them. Anything they tuch turns to crap.</p><p>Nobody in their right mind will put anything even remotely important in a cloud ran by Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sure seams to have a wicked spell of utter incompetence cast upon them .
Anything they tuch turns to crap.Nobody in their right mind will put anything even remotely important in a cloud ran by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sure seams to have a wicked spell of utter incompetence cast upon them.
Anything they tuch turns to crap.Nobody in their right mind will put anything even remotely important in a cloud ran by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761717</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1255598040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you trusted the power company that much, you wouldn't have UPS and power generators in data centers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you trusted the power company that much , you would n't have UPS and power generators in data centers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you trusted the power company that much, you wouldn't have UPS and power generators in data centers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762471</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1255601220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember Microsoft buying Hotmail back in the 90s, and royally screwing up its operations in much less than 18 months.  They tried to move to Windows servers very quickly, and it was a disaster, and they were forced to go back to their FreeBSD infrastructure for a while.</p><p>Maybe something similar happened here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember Microsoft buying Hotmail back in the 90s , and royally screwing up its operations in much less than 18 months .
They tried to move to Windows servers very quickly , and it was a disaster , and they were forced to go back to their FreeBSD infrastructure for a while.Maybe something similar happened here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember Microsoft buying Hotmail back in the 90s, and royally screwing up its operations in much less than 18 months.
They tried to move to Windows servers very quickly, and it was a disaster, and they were forced to go back to their FreeBSD infrastructure for a while.Maybe something similar happened here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>timster</author>
	<datestamp>1255638600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, he's NOT overstating his point.  Unless your data is a bunch of flat text files or Word documents or whatever the restore is a critically difficult process.</p><p>Enterprise data like this often has never been in a flat or "dead" state since the original implementation.  Complex applications frequently have delicate interactions between the live application and the contents of the database at any particular moment.  Having a bunch of database tables on a tape somewhere doesn't do you much good if the application can't actually start from the state contained on the tapes, and it's a two-week manual process to clean up the issues.</p><p>If you can afford a "slow and sketchy" restore process, or your application is just not that complicated, then by all means, don't test your restore, and don't create a department with responsibility for backups and nothing else.  It's still amateur work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he 's NOT overstating his point .
Unless your data is a bunch of flat text files or Word documents or whatever the restore is a critically difficult process.Enterprise data like this often has never been in a flat or " dead " state since the original implementation .
Complex applications frequently have delicate interactions between the live application and the contents of the database at any particular moment .
Having a bunch of database tables on a tape somewhere does n't do you much good if the application ca n't actually start from the state contained on the tapes , and it 's a two-week manual process to clean up the issues.If you can afford a " slow and sketchy " restore process , or your application is just not that complicated , then by all means , do n't test your restore , and do n't create a department with responsibility for backups and nothing else .
It 's still amateur work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he's NOT overstating his point.
Unless your data is a bunch of flat text files or Word documents or whatever the restore is a critically difficult process.Enterprise data like this often has never been in a flat or "dead" state since the original implementation.
Complex applications frequently have delicate interactions between the live application and the contents of the database at any particular moment.
Having a bunch of database tables on a tape somewhere doesn't do you much good if the application can't actually start from the state contained on the tapes, and it's a two-week manual process to clean up the issues.If you can afford a "slow and sketchy" restore process, or your application is just not that complicated, then by all means, don't test your restore, and don't create a department with responsibility for backups and nothing else.
It's still amateur work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761331</id>
	<title>All Hail Cloud computing!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255639320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what makes "cloud computing" so great! It's not your fault you don't have a backup, because you can't backup your own data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what makes " cloud computing " so great !
It 's not your fault you do n't have a backup , because you ca n't backup your own data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what makes "cloud computing" so great!
It's not your fault you don't have a backup, because you can't backup your own data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29767397</id>
	<title>Microsoft renders Sidekick data completely secure</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1255699620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft today implemented its 100\% Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick, <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/10/11/microsoft-renders-sidekick-data-completely-secure/" title="today.com">comprehensively protecting</a> [today.com] users&rsquo; contacts, email and messages from any possible attacker.

</p><p>&ldquo;Our data security is impenetrable,&rdquo; said Steve Ballmer, &ldquo;and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives.&rdquo;

</p><p>Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth, in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4.

</p><p>Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations.

</p><p>Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft today implemented its 100 \ % Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick , comprehensively protecting [ today.com ] users    contacts , email and messages from any possible attacker .
   Our data security is impenetrable ,    said Steve Ballmer ,    and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives.    Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth , in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4 .
Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations .
Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft today implemented its 100\% Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick, comprehensively protecting [today.com] users’ contacts, email and messages from any possible attacker.
“Our data security is impenetrable,” said Steve Ballmer, “and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives.”

Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth, in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4.
Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations.
Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760973</id>
	<title>Not likely</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1255637400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office."</i></p><p>I can't tell whether this is spin put on the summary by the submitter or some other third-party (because we all know submitters are, absent any editorial constraints on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., free to post what they want without attribution).  That said, it's highly unlikely Microsoft will suffer from this.  Wisely, they offloaded all responsibility the moment they created this entity known as Danger.  They've effectively washed their hands of the entire affair, because it wasn't really a <i>Microsoft</i> problem in the end, but a problem with an <i>affiliated company</i>.</p><p>It is simply wishful thinking on the part of the submitter (or whomever) that Microsoft will be tainted by this deal.  In all likelihood, Microsoft will simply walk away from their relationship with Danger, and it will be business again as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm 's other 'cloud computing ' plans , such as web-only editions of Office .
" I ca n't tell whether this is spin put on the summary by the submitter or some other third-party ( because we all know submitters are , absent any editorial constraints on /. , free to post what they want without attribution ) .
That said , it 's highly unlikely Microsoft will suffer from this .
Wisely , they offloaded all responsibility the moment they created this entity known as Danger .
They 've effectively washed their hands of the entire affair , because it was n't really a Microsoft problem in the end , but a problem with an affiliated company.It is simply wishful thinking on the part of the submitter ( or whomever ) that Microsoft will be tainted by this deal .
In all likelihood , Microsoft will simply walk away from their relationship with Danger , and it will be business again as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office.
"I can't tell whether this is spin put on the summary by the submitter or some other third-party (because we all know submitters are, absent any editorial constraints on /., free to post what they want without attribution).
That said, it's highly unlikely Microsoft will suffer from this.
Wisely, they offloaded all responsibility the moment they created this entity known as Danger.
They've effectively washed their hands of the entire affair, because it wasn't really a Microsoft problem in the end, but a problem with an affiliated company.It is simply wishful thinking on the part of the submitter (or whomever) that Microsoft will be tainted by this deal.
In all likelihood, Microsoft will simply walk away from their relationship with Danger, and it will be business again as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765613</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.</i> <br> <br>
Doing backup the right way is not easy for a non-IT professional.  Or for an IT professional who isn't on his A-game at home.   <br> <br>
Case in point-- last year my NTFS partition became corrupt and was silently turning files into 0-length files.  I had a (non-incremental) backup that ended up copying over a bunch of 0-length files.  A lot of the files were pictures of my 16-month old baby.  Thankfully I have nearly all those pictures stored in the cloud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps for people who do n't care about their data... Privacy , security , accountability and reliability can not be ensured by a third party .
I 'll keep my data in-house thank you .
Doing backup the right way is not easy for a non-IT professional .
Or for an IT professional who is n't on his A-game at home .
Case in point-- last year my NTFS partition became corrupt and was silently turning files into 0-length files .
I had a ( non-incremental ) backup that ended up copying over a bunch of 0-length files .
A lot of the files were pictures of my 16-month old baby .
Thankfully I have nearly all those pictures stored in the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party.
I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Doing backup the right way is not easy for a non-IT professional.
Or for an IT professional who isn't on his A-game at home.
Case in point-- last year my NTFS partition became corrupt and was silently turning files into 0-length files.
I had a (non-incremental) backup that ended up copying over a bunch of 0-length files.
A lot of the files were pictures of my 16-month old baby.
Thankfully I have nearly all those pictures stored in the cloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29767569</id>
	<title>Long term damage done</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is more like 1984 scandal of Amazon Kindle, it will have long time impact on cloud computing and the general direction of things to come.</p><p>Even if you invent a system about e-ink/store tomorrow which has NOTHING to do with Amazon Kindle, you will still be asked "but will you delete my books remotely?". Just like some dead tech acquired by MS and not managed well will cost even IBM Mainframe dept. sales.</p><p>If one is a hopeless conspiracy theorist, he can easily suggest MS did it on purpose to lower general public trust to cloud which they have almost nothing. Cloud is all open source empire right now, Apache Hadoop etc. are being talked about, not some MS enterprise server or technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is more like 1984 scandal of Amazon Kindle , it will have long time impact on cloud computing and the general direction of things to come.Even if you invent a system about e-ink/store tomorrow which has NOTHING to do with Amazon Kindle , you will still be asked " but will you delete my books remotely ? " .
Just like some dead tech acquired by MS and not managed well will cost even IBM Mainframe dept .
sales.If one is a hopeless conspiracy theorist , he can easily suggest MS did it on purpose to lower general public trust to cloud which they have almost nothing .
Cloud is all open source empire right now , Apache Hadoop etc .
are being talked about , not some MS enterprise server or technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is more like 1984 scandal of Amazon Kindle, it will have long time impact on cloud computing and the general direction of things to come.Even if you invent a system about e-ink/store tomorrow which has NOTHING to do with Amazon Kindle, you will still be asked "but will you delete my books remotely?".
Just like some dead tech acquired by MS and not managed well will cost even IBM Mainframe dept.
sales.If one is a hopeless conspiracy theorist, he can easily suggest MS did it on purpose to lower general public trust to cloud which they have almost nothing.
Cloud is all open source empire right now, Apache Hadoop etc.
are being talked about, not some MS enterprise server or technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762565</id>
	<title>Queue T-Mo vs Microsoft lawsuit in 4. . .3. . .2</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1255601520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this outage wasn't T-Mo's fault, I would expect T-Mo to sue Microsoft for damages. I mean, why should T-Mo have to eat the huge financial losses?  Unless T-Mo has idiots for lawyers, who entered into a business relationship of this sort with Danger/Microsoft with no language in the contract holding Microsoft liable for such losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this outage was n't T-Mo 's fault , I would expect T-Mo to sue Microsoft for damages .
I mean , why should T-Mo have to eat the huge financial losses ?
Unless T-Mo has idiots for lawyers , who entered into a business relationship of this sort with Danger/Microsoft with no language in the contract holding Microsoft liable for such losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this outage wasn't T-Mo's fault, I would expect T-Mo to sue Microsoft for damages.
I mean, why should T-Mo have to eat the huge financial losses?
Unless T-Mo has idiots for lawyers, who entered into a business relationship of this sort with Danger/Microsoft with no language in the contract holding Microsoft liable for such losses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761101</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1255638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, to be sure.  But the whole incident spells out in stark detail the dangers of "cloud computing", or as us folks who actually have worked with computers for more than than ten minutes call it; the client-server model.  When explained as what it really is, it's a matter of ensuring adequate and timely backups.  When described in some pathetic marketing term, it sounds like some magical new way of computing, no longer constrained by those old-fashioned good practices.</p><p>Quite frankly, I would never ever ever put any mission critical data or apps on a system that I couldn't back end the data on my own out of.  If I can't move my data out of the app, then my data never gets there in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a bit of a non sequitur , to be sure .
But the whole incident spells out in stark detail the dangers of " cloud computing " , or as us folks who actually have worked with computers for more than than ten minutes call it ; the client-server model .
When explained as what it really is , it 's a matter of ensuring adequate and timely backups .
When described in some pathetic marketing term , it sounds like some magical new way of computing , no longer constrained by those old-fashioned good practices.Quite frankly , I would never ever ever put any mission critical data or apps on a system that I could n't back end the data on my own out of .
If I ca n't move my data out of the app , then my data never gets there in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, to be sure.
But the whole incident spells out in stark detail the dangers of "cloud computing", or as us folks who actually have worked with computers for more than than ten minutes call it; the client-server model.
When explained as what it really is, it's a matter of ensuring adequate and timely backups.
When described in some pathetic marketing term, it sounds like some magical new way of computing, no longer constrained by those old-fashioned good practices.Quite frankly, I would never ever ever put any mission critical data or apps on a system that I couldn't back end the data on my own out of.
If I can't move my data out of the app, then my data never gets there in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760939</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T says thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, at least this fiasco took the heat off their crappy network for a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , at least this fiasco took the heat off their crappy network for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, at least this fiasco took the heat off their crappy network for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762841</id>
	<title>This makes sense in a way...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1255602540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I call T-Mobile about my G1 and complain that it doesn't actually delete emails that I delete, or that the maps sometimes don't show me where a business is actually located correctly, or that I inevitable have to wipe after an OTA release, I get any of several variations on '...it's not our software, sir'. Of course, I am directed to the forums, where I can bitch and moan, but still, after 4 major releases, POP email isn't actually deleted.</p><p>I call Google, and, no, wait, I have only forums and blogs to correspond with Google about this.  The issue is known since launch, and still not fixed.  Google has no statement about this because they don't even bother to acknowledge the issue 'officially'.</p><p>The Open Handset Alliance? Ha! That's funny!</p><p>Other releases?  I have no idea if Cyanogen's release has a new email app, but I suspect it doesn't.  Ditto for JF and the rest.</p><p>So holding up T-Mobile for this Sidekick fiasco will be equally pointless.</p><p>But, I suspect, TMO is seriously reconsidering selling Sidekicks.  And Danger is probably begging them to not destroy their business.</p><p>And Microsoft will do just fine, no matter what.</p><p>This is the treatment you get when the big corps decide 'good enough' is good enough.</p><p>Now, will someone further explore why they would consider buying a Hitachi SAN system?  I won't.  Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I call T-Mobile about my G1 and complain that it does n't actually delete emails that I delete , or that the maps sometimes do n't show me where a business is actually located correctly , or that I inevitable have to wipe after an OTA release , I get any of several variations on '...it 's not our software , sir' .
Of course , I am directed to the forums , where I can bitch and moan , but still , after 4 major releases , POP email is n't actually deleted.I call Google , and , no , wait , I have only forums and blogs to correspond with Google about this .
The issue is known since launch , and still not fixed .
Google has no statement about this because they do n't even bother to acknowledge the issue 'officially'.The Open Handset Alliance ?
Ha ! That 's funny ! Other releases ?
I have no idea if Cyanogen 's release has a new email app , but I suspect it does n't .
Ditto for JF and the rest.So holding up T-Mobile for this Sidekick fiasco will be equally pointless.But , I suspect , TMO is seriously reconsidering selling Sidekicks .
And Danger is probably begging them to not destroy their business.And Microsoft will do just fine , no matter what.This is the treatment you get when the big corps decide 'good enough ' is good enough.Now , will someone further explore why they would consider buying a Hitachi SAN system ?
I wo n't .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I call T-Mobile about my G1 and complain that it doesn't actually delete emails that I delete, or that the maps sometimes don't show me where a business is actually located correctly, or that I inevitable have to wipe after an OTA release, I get any of several variations on '...it's not our software, sir'.
Of course, I am directed to the forums, where I can bitch and moan, but still, after 4 major releases, POP email isn't actually deleted.I call Google, and, no, wait, I have only forums and blogs to correspond with Google about this.
The issue is known since launch, and still not fixed.
Google has no statement about this because they don't even bother to acknowledge the issue 'officially'.The Open Handset Alliance?
Ha! That's funny!Other releases?
I have no idea if Cyanogen's release has a new email app, but I suspect it doesn't.
Ditto for JF and the rest.So holding up T-Mobile for this Sidekick fiasco will be equally pointless.But, I suspect, TMO is seriously reconsidering selling Sidekicks.
And Danger is probably begging them to not destroy their business.And Microsoft will do just fine, no matter what.This is the treatment you get when the big corps decide 'good enough' is good enough.Now, will someone further explore why they would consider buying a Hitachi SAN system?
I won't.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761627</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Slipped\_Disk</author>
	<datestamp>1255597500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This point absolutely cannot be overstated: A backup that has never been through a restore/recovery test is just as bad as having no backups at all.<br>
Your admin team or hosting company should be able to tell you what is involved to get from your backup to a fully functioning production system (a truly well thought-out backup scheme will have a step-by-step recovery checklist), and they should be able to provide a worst-case data loss estimate based on your backup scheme.<br>
<br>
This isn't a failure of "cloud computing" or any other buzzword-of-the-day but rather a failure of basic competence in information management: an unforeseen event coupled with broken, inadequate or nonexistent backups lead to a catastrophic data loss that should never have happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This point absolutely can not be overstated : A backup that has never been through a restore/recovery test is just as bad as having no backups at all .
Your admin team or hosting company should be able to tell you what is involved to get from your backup to a fully functioning production system ( a truly well thought-out backup scheme will have a step-by-step recovery checklist ) , and they should be able to provide a worst-case data loss estimate based on your backup scheme .
This is n't a failure of " cloud computing " or any other buzzword-of-the-day but rather a failure of basic competence in information management : an unforeseen event coupled with broken , inadequate or nonexistent backups lead to a catastrophic data loss that should never have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This point absolutely cannot be overstated: A backup that has never been through a restore/recovery test is just as bad as having no backups at all.
Your admin team or hosting company should be able to tell you what is involved to get from your backup to a fully functioning production system (a truly well thought-out backup scheme will have a step-by-step recovery checklist), and they should be able to provide a worst-case data loss estimate based on your backup scheme.
This isn't a failure of "cloud computing" or any other buzzword-of-the-day but rather a failure of basic competence in information management: an unforeseen event coupled with broken, inadequate or nonexistent backups lead to a catastrophic data loss that should never have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765299</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1255620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well, since this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you take your car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic botches the job.  Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?</i> <br> <br>

I'm a victim of a botched oil change.  In my case, I ended up doing most of my vehicle maintenance myself and I found a different company to do the complicated stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since this is /. , you take your car in for a routine oil change .
The mechanic botches the job .
Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild ?
I 'm a victim of a botched oil change .
In my case , I ended up doing most of my vehicle maintenance myself and I found a different company to do the complicated stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change.
The mechanic botches the job.
Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?
I'm a victim of a botched oil change.
In my case, I ended up doing most of my vehicle maintenance myself and I found a different company to do the complicated stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761927</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1255599120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could have easily have been prevented. Let me ask why the fuck no data was stored locally??? Why the hell do I need to connect to the network and download a contact that should be stored locally and always accessible regardless if I have a signal or not? You want your data in the cloud? That's fine but that means more than one copy and data synchronization. One copy on your device and one on their servers. That is just poor design or another CEO decision to just use the servers because it's cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could have easily have been prevented .
Let me ask why the fuck no data was stored locally ? ? ?
Why the hell do I need to connect to the network and download a contact that should be stored locally and always accessible regardless if I have a signal or not ?
You want your data in the cloud ?
That 's fine but that means more than one copy and data synchronization .
One copy on your device and one on their servers .
That is just poor design or another CEO decision to just use the servers because it 's cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could have easily have been prevented.
Let me ask why the fuck no data was stored locally???
Why the hell do I need to connect to the network and download a contact that should be stored locally and always accessible regardless if I have a signal or not?
You want your data in the cloud?
That's fine but that means more than one copy and data synchronization.
One copy on your device and one on their servers.
That is just poor design or another CEO decision to just use the servers because it's cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760905</id>
	<title>As Rob Pegoraro of The WaPo points out</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1255637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2009/10/microsoft\_says\_it\_can\_recover.html" title="washingtonpost.com">here</a> [washingtonpost.com] the damage to T-Mobile is compounded by their tone deafness on customer support.</p><blockquote><div><p>Uh, T-Mobile, can I offer a hint here? This is not the time to nickel-and-dime cranky customers. Let them go now, and maybe they won't spend the next nine months telling everybody they know to avoid your service -- instead, if you're lucky, they'll find a new hobby after only two months.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>here [ washingtonpost.com ] the damage to T-Mobile is compounded by their tone deafness on customer support.Uh , T-Mobile , can I offer a hint here ?
This is not the time to nickel-and-dime cranky customers .
Let them go now , and maybe they wo n't spend the next nine months telling everybody they know to avoid your service -- instead , if you 're lucky , they 'll find a new hobby after only two months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here [washingtonpost.com] the damage to T-Mobile is compounded by their tone deafness on customer support.Uh, T-Mobile, can I offer a hint here?
This is not the time to nickel-and-dime cranky customers.
Let them go now, and maybe they won't spend the next nine months telling everybody they know to avoid your service -- instead, if you're lucky, they'll find a new hobby after only two months.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764297</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>PhreeStyle</author>
	<datestamp>1255610880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you know why I don't use word / office or any micrcosoft products at all; and keep all my data in plain text. Hell, I can back up most of my documents as a zip file to any number of free 'cloud-disk' servers; and have room to spare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you know why I do n't use word / office or any micrcosoft products at all ; and keep all my data in plain text .
Hell , I can back up most of my documents as a zip file to any number of free 'cloud-disk ' servers ; and have room to spare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you know why I don't use word / office or any micrcosoft products at all; and keep all my data in plain text.
Hell, I can back up most of my documents as a zip file to any number of free 'cloud-disk' servers; and have room to spare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873</id>
	<title>Cloud computer</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1255636920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just buzz, it's the future bro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just buzz , it 's the future bro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just buzz, it's the future bro.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29775787</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure</title>
	<author>Badlands</author>
	<datestamp>1255716360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, well how about this?  I have owned every Sidekick model since the first, in 2002/2003 (can't remember exactly when).  I have never lost data while using the device with T-Mobile.  I've had many data glitches, and I lost the hardware twice and restored it effortlessly from the "cloud" (of course we did not call it that, then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).

<br>
<br>

While the rest of the tech world "dreamed of the future when mobile devices had useable browsers and data was reliably stored on remote servers", I lived the dream.   They were way ahead of their time (and don't tell me you had this or that device - I evaluated every device coming to market every year, and they all sucked until recently).

<br>
<br>
After MS bought Danger, I knew that era was over.  And now, the results of that marriage (or should I say "meal") has produced this epic 2 week outage.  Tell me how the culprit could NOT be MS ??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , well how about this ?
I have owned every Sidekick model since the first , in 2002/2003 ( ca n't remember exactly when ) .
I have never lost data while using the device with T-Mobile .
I 've had many data glitches , and I lost the hardware twice and restored it effortlessly from the " cloud " ( of course we did not call it that , then : ) .
While the rest of the tech world " dreamed of the future when mobile devices had useable browsers and data was reliably stored on remote servers " , I lived the dream .
They were way ahead of their time ( and do n't tell me you had this or that device - I evaluated every device coming to market every year , and they all sucked until recently ) .
After MS bought Danger , I knew that era was over .
And now , the results of that marriage ( or should I say " meal " ) has produced this epic 2 week outage .
Tell me how the culprit could NOT be MS ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, well how about this?
I have owned every Sidekick model since the first, in 2002/2003 (can't remember exactly when).
I have never lost data while using the device with T-Mobile.
I've had many data glitches, and I lost the hardware twice and restored it effortlessly from the "cloud" (of course we did not call it that, then :).
While the rest of the tech world "dreamed of the future when mobile devices had useable browsers and data was reliably stored on remote servers", I lived the dream.
They were way ahead of their time (and don't tell me you had this or that device - I evaluated every device coming to market every year, and they all sucked until recently).
After MS bought Danger, I knew that era was over.
And now, the results of that marriage (or should I say "meal") has produced this epic 2 week outage.
Tell me how the culprit could NOT be MS ?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761541</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1255597200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure.</p> </div><p>So what is supposed to happen while "slow and sketchy" is taking place?  All business stops?</p><p>And what is meant by "sketchy"?  "Sketchy" is not the adjective I like to hear used to describe the accuracy and consistency of my data.</p><p>Even if you're just backing up a bunch of flat files, how do you know that your backup is a consistent snapshot?  Or are you OK with your data just being invalid in unpredictable ways?</p><p>Where are your backups located?  On-site?  I sure hope not.  Fires happen.  Floods happen.</p><p>Backups and restores are tricky to get right, and I don't think it's possible to overstate this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy ?
Sure. So what is supposed to happen while " slow and sketchy " is taking place ?
All business stops ? And what is meant by " sketchy " ?
" Sketchy " is not the adjective I like to hear used to describe the accuracy and consistency of my data.Even if you 're just backing up a bunch of flat files , how do you know that your backup is a consistent snapshot ?
Or are you OK with your data just being invalid in unpredictable ways ? Where are your backups located ?
On-site ? I sure hope not .
Fires happen .
Floods happen.Backups and restores are tricky to get right , and I do n't think it 's possible to overstate this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy?
Sure. So what is supposed to happen while "slow and sketchy" is taking place?
All business stops?And what is meant by "sketchy"?
"Sketchy" is not the adjective I like to hear used to describe the accuracy and consistency of my data.Even if you're just backing up a bunch of flat files, how do you know that your backup is a consistent snapshot?
Or are you OK with your data just being invalid in unpredictable ways?Where are your backups located?
On-site?  I sure hope not.
Fires happen.
Floods happen.Backups and restores are tricky to get right, and I don't think it's possible to overstate this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761653</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud computer</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255597680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, if I'm gonna lose personal data I want it to be to my own flawed backup strategy! To hell with professionals whose job and business is to do just that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if I 'm gon na lose personal data I want it to be to my own flawed backup strategy !
To hell with professionals whose job and business is to do just that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if I'm gonna lose personal data I want it to be to my own flawed backup strategy!
To hell with professionals whose job and business is to do just that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762081</id>
	<title>That's fine if you're a one man operation</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1255599900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But once you're large enough to need to hire someone to manage the grunt work, you're putting your privacy, security and accountability in their hands. It doesn't really matter if they're in house or contracted out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But once you 're large enough to need to hire someone to manage the grunt work , you 're putting your privacy , security and accountability in their hands .
It does n't really matter if they 're in house or contracted out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But once you're large enough to need to hire someone to manage the grunt work, you're putting your privacy, security and accountability in their hands.
It doesn't really matter if they're in house or contracted out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762645</id>
	<title>Re:Hire more Americans</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1255601760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has been employing and run by Americans since it started, and they've produced nothing but buggy crap.</p><p>Meanwhile, the Mars rovers have been a tremendous success, built by American engineers using American-made software I believe (I'm pretty sure they use vxWorks).  This is the epitome of software reliability I think.</p><p>I don't think nationality has much to do with this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has been employing and run by Americans since it started , and they 've produced nothing but buggy crap.Meanwhile , the Mars rovers have been a tremendous success , built by American engineers using American-made software I believe ( I 'm pretty sure they use vxWorks ) .
This is the epitome of software reliability I think.I do n't think nationality has much to do with this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has been employing and run by Americans since it started, and they've produced nothing but buggy crap.Meanwhile, the Mars rovers have been a tremendous success, built by American engineers using American-made software I believe (I'm pretty sure they use vxWorks).
This is the epitome of software reliability I think.I don't think nationality has much to do with this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29790435</id>
	<title>Re:said it before and will say it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255890600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New Jersey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New Jersey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Jersey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764179</id>
	<title>T-Mobile didn't get hit that hard.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use to work for T-Mobile, and if you think for one minute that this interuption is going to cost T-Mobile, you're kidding yourself.<br>T-Mobile makes mad, mad money.  This doesn't hurt them one bit.  They are not loosing a single cent, even if they give money back to their customers, because it's all "expected income".<br>And it's only just and right that a huge Telco that rips off it's customers has to finally payout for a their screw up.</p><p>This didn't hurt T-Mobile at all, it hurt the customers who are locked into that damn 2 year contract!  GO BOOST OR CRICKET!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use to work for T-Mobile , and if you think for one minute that this interuption is going to cost T-Mobile , you 're kidding yourself.T-Mobile makes mad , mad money .
This does n't hurt them one bit .
They are not loosing a single cent , even if they give money back to their customers , because it 's all " expected income " .And it 's only just and right that a huge Telco that rips off it 's customers has to finally payout for a their screw up.This did n't hurt T-Mobile at all , it hurt the customers who are locked into that damn 2 year contract !
GO BOOST OR CRICKET !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use to work for T-Mobile, and if you think for one minute that this interuption is going to cost T-Mobile, you're kidding yourself.T-Mobile makes mad, mad money.
This doesn't hurt them one bit.
They are not loosing a single cent, even if they give money back to their customers, because it's all "expected income".And it's only just and right that a huge Telco that rips off it's customers has to finally payout for a their screw up.This didn't hurt T-Mobile at all, it hurt the customers who are locked into that damn 2 year contract!
GO BOOST OR CRICKET!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761153</id>
	<title>Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS.  T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be.  MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers.  If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services.  If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.</p></div><p>Hehe.  I raised this issue when this broke.  We have a huge amount of critical data outsourced to a hosting company.  I sent this fiasco up the food chain asking what is our backup strategy should this happen to our host.</p><p>I got back some pablum about "well, they have 2 geographically separate datacenters, blah blah blah" from the guy who administers the contract.</p><p>Maybe they did at one point but I know the folks we use fired most of their devs, including the lead developer, back in March as a cost cutting measure. and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the "two data centers" disappeared along with the developers.  Regardless, no one on our end seems to be concerned and no one is taking any precautions (like local backups.)</p><p>Maybe one day I'll get to say, "I Told You So."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS. T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be .
MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers .
If you 're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services .
If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer " there 's nothing business critical relying on MS services " by the time that meeting comes.Hehe .
I raised this issue when this broke .
We have a huge amount of critical data outsourced to a hosting company .
I sent this fiasco up the food chain asking what is our backup strategy should this happen to our host.I got back some pablum about " well , they have 2 geographically separate datacenters , blah blah blah " from the guy who administers the contract.Maybe they did at one point but I know the folks we use fired most of their devs , including the lead developer , back in March as a cost cutting measure .
and I would n't be surprised if one of the " two data centers " disappeared along with the developers .
Regardless , no one on our end seems to be concerned and no one is taking any precautions ( like local backups .
) Maybe one day I 'll get to say , " I Told You So .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS.  T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be.
MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers.
If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services.
If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.Hehe.
I raised this issue when this broke.
We have a huge amount of critical data outsourced to a hosting company.
I sent this fiasco up the food chain asking what is our backup strategy should this happen to our host.I got back some pablum about "well, they have 2 geographically separate datacenters, blah blah blah" from the guy who administers the contract.Maybe they did at one point but I know the folks we use fired most of their devs, including the lead developer, back in March as a cost cutting measure.
and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the "two data centers" disappeared along with the developers.
Regardless, no one on our end seems to be concerned and no one is taking any precautions (like local backups.
)Maybe one day I'll get to say, "I Told You So.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765481</id>
	<title>It was truth</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255623360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the person who said it, that the data was unrecoverable was true.  Unfortunately for them the implications of losing a million people's personal data is not a normal case.  In that case some heroic data recovery options are available, including engaging every person involved in design and implementation of the storage from the platter up, at whatever rate they ask, for the duration of the emergency.  Problems that involve a half-billion dollars merit that level of intervention.
</p><p>A remarkable job for the MS crew here.  Kudos to everybody except the twit that lost everybody's data.
</p><p>Do I want a MS thin client phone now?  Why I'm glad you asked.  No.  Hell no.  Are you freaking kidding? NO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the person who said it , that the data was unrecoverable was true .
Unfortunately for them the implications of losing a million people 's personal data is not a normal case .
In that case some heroic data recovery options are available , including engaging every person involved in design and implementation of the storage from the platter up , at whatever rate they ask , for the duration of the emergency .
Problems that involve a half-billion dollars merit that level of intervention .
A remarkable job for the MS crew here .
Kudos to everybody except the twit that lost everybody 's data .
Do I want a MS thin client phone now ?
Why I 'm glad you asked .
No. Hell no .
Are you freaking kidding ?
NO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the person who said it, that the data was unrecoverable was true.
Unfortunately for them the implications of losing a million people's personal data is not a normal case.
In that case some heroic data recovery options are available, including engaging every person involved in design and implementation of the storage from the platter up, at whatever rate they ask, for the duration of the emergency.
Problems that involve a half-billion dollars merit that level of intervention.
A remarkable job for the MS crew here.
Kudos to everybody except the twit that lost everybody's data.
Do I want a MS thin client phone now?
Why I'm glad you asked.
No.  Hell no.
Are you freaking kidding?
NO!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763037</id>
	<title>Semantics</title>
	<author>Rob Riggs</author>
	<datestamp>1255603500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.</p></div><p>Is that like saying "The pedestrian was injured by Mr. Smith's car, a Mercedes?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.Is that like saying " The pedestrian was injured by Mr. Smith 's car , a Mercedes ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger.Is that like saying "The pedestrian was injured by Mr. Smith's car, a Mercedes?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947</id>
	<title>Backups are unimportant; restore is everything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worth repeating every time.  Nobody cares if you back up your data.  Take a blank server; take whatever it is that you store offsite.  If you can turn the blank server into your production system then you are fine.  If you can't then your strategy is failing.  If you never try it then you are an amateur.

</p><p>This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS.  T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be.  MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers.  If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services.  If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worth repeating every time .
Nobody cares if you back up your data .
Take a blank server ; take whatever it is that you store offsite .
If you can turn the blank server into your production system then you are fine .
If you ca n't then your strategy is failing .
If you never try it then you are an amateur .
This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS. T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be .
MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers .
If you 're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services .
If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer " there 's nothing business critical relying on MS services " by the time that meeting comes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worth repeating every time.
Nobody cares if you back up your data.
Take a blank server; take whatever it is that you store offsite.
If you can turn the blank server into your production system then you are fine.
If you can't then your strategy is failing.
If you never try it then you are an amateur.
This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS.  T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be.
MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers.
If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services.
If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29780439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29790435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29775787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1855200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29768233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29780439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29790435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29775787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761209
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29769169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29768233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761651
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29766407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29765481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29764929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29763963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1855200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29760879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29761253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1855200.29762071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
