<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_31_0525203</id>
	<title>Why Computers Suck At Math</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256991360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>antdude writes <i>"This TechRadar article explains <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/why-computers-suck-at-maths-644771">why computers suck at math</a>, and how simple calculations can be a matter of life and death, like in the case of a Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attack: 'The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time, which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up. Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register &mdash; as used in the Patriot system &mdash; it's out by a tiny amount. But all these tiny amounts add up. At the time of the missile attack, the system had been running for about 100 hours, or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific. Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m. The radar looked in the wrong place to receive a confirmation and saw no target. Accordingly no missile was launched to intercept the incoming Scud &mdash; and 28 people paid with their lives.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>antdude writes " This TechRadar article explains why computers suck at math , and how simple calculations can be a matter of life and death , like in the case of a Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attack : 'The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time , which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up .
Unfortunately , 0.1 seconds can not be expressed accurately as a binary number , so when it 's shoehorned into a 24-bit register    as used in the Patriot system    it 's out by a tiny amount .
But all these tiny amounts add up .
At the time of the missile attack , the system had been running for about 100 hours , or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific .
Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds , during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m .
The radar looked in the wrong place to receive a confirmation and saw no target .
Accordingly no missile was launched to intercept the incoming Scud    and 28 people paid with their lives .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>antdude writes "This TechRadar article explains why computers suck at math, and how simple calculations can be a matter of life and death, like in the case of a Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attack: 'The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time, which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up.
Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register — as used in the Patriot system — it's out by a tiny amount.
But all these tiny amounts add up.
At the time of the missile attack, the system had been running for about 100 hours, or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific.
Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m.
The radar looked in the wrong place to receive a confirmation and saw no target.
Accordingly no missile was launched to intercept the incoming Scud — and 28 people paid with their lives.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933651</id>
	<title>Worst article ever.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about misleading headline. All was at the programmers' fault. The computer did no "bad math".</p><p>Stupid humanist journalists should not be writing technical articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about misleading headline .
All was at the programmers ' fault .
The computer did no " bad math " .Stupid humanist journalists should not be writing technical articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about misleading headline.
All was at the programmers' fault.
The computer did no "bad math".Stupid humanist journalists should not be writing technical articles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh really?  The problem with these systems is that they have never worked in anything other than rigged tests and are just silicon snake oil.<br>I remember having this same discussion where there was a story here about some sort of Israeli space lasers that could apparently even shoot down artillery shells.  Only a few months after that a very large number of thirty year old rockets dumped at discount price by Iran for being obsolete came flying over the border from Lebanon.  Since then a lot of even slower rockets came out of Gaza.  The success rate of this amazing new space toy matches that of the Patriot - zero.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
The problem with these systems is that they have never worked in anything other than rigged tests and are just silicon snake oil.I remember having this same discussion where there was a story here about some sort of Israeli space lasers that could apparently even shoot down artillery shells .
Only a few months after that a very large number of thirty year old rockets dumped at discount price by Iran for being obsolete came flying over the border from Lebanon .
Since then a lot of even slower rockets came out of Gaza .
The success rate of this amazing new space toy matches that of the Patriot - zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
The problem with these systems is that they have never worked in anything other than rigged tests and are just silicon snake oil.I remember having this same discussion where there was a story here about some sort of Israeli space lasers that could apparently even shoot down artillery shells.
Only a few months after that a very large number of thirty year old rockets dumped at discount price by Iran for being obsolete came flying over the border from Lebanon.
Since then a lot of even slower rockets came out of Gaza.
The success rate of this amazing new space toy matches that of the Patriot - zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938165</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously flawed reporting</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1256996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.</p></div></blockquote><p>I suspect the terms accuracy and precision were confused.  The tracking system could very well be designed with a precision of 0.1 seconds (with the associated programming error causing an offset after hand-off which drifts over time) but maintain an accuracy much better than that.  While it is unusual, it is not unknown for conversions between analog and digital domains to have integral non-linearity errors much much less than the resolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.I suspect the terms accuracy and precision were confused .
The tracking system could very well be designed with a precision of 0.1 seconds ( with the associated programming error causing an offset after hand-off which drifts over time ) but maintain an accuracy much better than that .
While it is unusual , it is not unknown for conversions between analog and digital domains to have integral non-linearity errors much much less than the resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.I suspect the terms accuracy and precision were confused.
The tracking system could very well be designed with a precision of 0.1 seconds (with the associated programming error causing an offset after hand-off which drifts over time) but maintain an accuracy much better than that.
While it is unusual, it is not unknown for conversions between analog and digital domains to have integral non-linearity errors much much less than the resolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689</id>
	<title>This problem has been solved since the 1960s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember this from a numerical methods class in the 1980s.  To deal with situations like this, you can do one of three things :</p><p>a) Have a function that you sample as a function of t, so you don't get accumulated error.<br>b) Have enough bits so that error won't be an issue.  This is actually hard to do because floating point errors do stack up pretty quick if you are not careful.<br>c) Or, you can have an error term which you can use to make adjustments along the way to account for a lack of precision. Bresenham's line does that more or less exactly when he does his lines.  That's why you had "stair stepping" as the algorithm corrected itself along the way.</p><p>If the OP was correct, then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them.  My bet is in reality, they simply underestimated the actual error term, but did everything else correct.  This could be because of discrepancies in flight control instrumentation or some sensor, or, they were simply trying to save money on bits and didn't really do the calculation as to how far the missile could be off in an error term length seconds of flight at a particular phase in its flight profile.</p><p>Bottom line is, the engineering discipline exists to solve this problem and is really no different than error handling in any guidance system.  Putting a man on the moon, launching an ICBM at target, shooting down a missile, are all essentially the same computer science problem from an error management perspective.  The Phd's already nailed this decades ago.  There's not a fundamental limitation to computing, in this case, merely, a failure or inability of engineers on this project to apply the correct known answer to this problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember this from a numerical methods class in the 1980s .
To deal with situations like this , you can do one of three things : a ) Have a function that you sample as a function of t , so you do n't get accumulated error.b ) Have enough bits so that error wo n't be an issue .
This is actually hard to do because floating point errors do stack up pretty quick if you are not careful.c ) Or , you can have an error term which you can use to make adjustments along the way to account for a lack of precision .
Bresenham 's line does that more or less exactly when he does his lines .
That 's why you had " stair stepping " as the algorithm corrected itself along the way.If the OP was correct , then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them .
My bet is in reality , they simply underestimated the actual error term , but did everything else correct .
This could be because of discrepancies in flight control instrumentation or some sensor , or , they were simply trying to save money on bits and did n't really do the calculation as to how far the missile could be off in an error term length seconds of flight at a particular phase in its flight profile.Bottom line is , the engineering discipline exists to solve this problem and is really no different than error handling in any guidance system .
Putting a man on the moon , launching an ICBM at target , shooting down a missile , are all essentially the same computer science problem from an error management perspective .
The Phd 's already nailed this decades ago .
There 's not a fundamental limitation to computing , in this case , merely , a failure or inability of engineers on this project to apply the correct known answer to this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember this from a numerical methods class in the 1980s.
To deal with situations like this, you can do one of three things :a) Have a function that you sample as a function of t, so you don't get accumulated error.b) Have enough bits so that error won't be an issue.
This is actually hard to do because floating point errors do stack up pretty quick if you are not careful.c) Or, you can have an error term which you can use to make adjustments along the way to account for a lack of precision.
Bresenham's line does that more or less exactly when he does his lines.
That's why you had "stair stepping" as the algorithm corrected itself along the way.If the OP was correct, then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them.
My bet is in reality, they simply underestimated the actual error term, but did everything else correct.
This could be because of discrepancies in flight control instrumentation or some sensor, or, they were simply trying to save money on bits and didn't really do the calculation as to how far the missile could be off in an error term length seconds of flight at a particular phase in its flight profile.Bottom line is, the engineering discipline exists to solve this problem and is really no different than error handling in any guidance system.
Putting a man on the moon, launching an ICBM at target, shooting down a missile, are all essentially the same computer science problem from an error management perspective.
The Phd's already nailed this decades ago.
There's not a fundamental limitation to computing, in this case, merely, a failure or inability of engineers on this project to apply the correct known answer to this problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29953560</id>
	<title>don't blame the goalie</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257193320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people, not the computer.</i></p><p>Or, y'know, call me crazy, but maybe we should blame the Iraqi government for launching the missiles with intent to kill civilians?  That Patriot did any good at all (if it did) is just added good fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people , not the computer.Or , y'know , call me crazy , but maybe we should blame the Iraqi government for launching the missiles with intent to kill civilians ?
That Patriot did any good at all ( if it did ) is just added good fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people, not the computer.Or, y'know, call me crazy, but maybe we should blame the Iraqi government for launching the missiles with intent to kill civilians?
That Patriot did any good at all (if it did) is just added good fortune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934467</id>
	<title>Incorrect Evaluation of the Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computers are quite well at math, and do so with amazing accuracy.<br>The problem is the people applying the math computations to the<br>computer system. The problem existed long before computers and<br>produced an area of mathematics called numerical analysis.<br>Slide rules produced greater errors, and hand calculations even more<br>so, yet this can be accounted for.</p><p>Non-math people should not be doing this on their own but should<br>be requesting the help of mathematicians when they don't understand<br>how to compensate for such errors or know when the errors have<br>reached a level that compromises the integrity of the calculations<br>and thus requires a new starting point.</p><p>Programmers should not pretend to be mathematicians or engineers<br>or anything but what they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers are quite well at math , and do so with amazing accuracy.The problem is the people applying the math computations to thecomputer system .
The problem existed long before computers andproduced an area of mathematics called numerical analysis.Slide rules produced greater errors , and hand calculations even moreso , yet this can be accounted for.Non-math people should not be doing this on their own but shouldbe requesting the help of mathematicians when they do n't understandhow to compensate for such errors or know when the errors havereached a level that compromises the integrity of the calculationsand thus requires a new starting point.Programmers should not pretend to be mathematicians or engineersor anything but what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers are quite well at math, and do so with amazing accuracy.The problem is the people applying the math computations to thecomputer system.
The problem existed long before computers andproduced an area of mathematics called numerical analysis.Slide rules produced greater errors, and hand calculations even moreso, yet this can be accounted for.Non-math people should not be doing this on their own but shouldbe requesting the help of mathematicians when they don't understandhow to compensate for such errors or know when the errors havereached a level that compromises the integrity of the calculationsand thus requires a new starting point.Programmers should not pretend to be mathematicians or engineersor anything but what they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939313</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>waddleman</author>
	<datestamp>1257009540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Patriot has at least 8 confirmed kills. Granted all occured in the second Iraq war, but we should stop spreading lies.</p><p> <a href="http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot\_Report\_Summary.pdf" title="osd.mil" rel="nofollow">http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot\_Report\_Summary.pdf</a> [osd.mil] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patriot has at least 8 confirmed kills .
Granted all occured in the second Iraq war , but we should stop spreading lies .
http : //www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot \ _Report \ _Summary.pdf [ osd.mil ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patriot has at least 8 confirmed kills.
Granted all occured in the second Iraq war, but we should stop spreading lies.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot\_Report\_Summary.pdf [osd.mil] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934919</id>
	<title>Re:This problem has been solved since the 1960s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can stop overcomplicating the problem and just use fixed point math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can stop overcomplicating the problem and just use fixed point math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can stop overcomplicating the problem and just use fixed point math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933857</id>
	<title>tech failure vs people failure</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1256998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was written up as a tech failure (and not a people failure) because newsmen who call their sources stupid lose their sources. As others have pointed out, the answer to your question of why this is news is because of the system failure resulting is death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was written up as a tech failure ( and not a people failure ) because newsmen who call their sources stupid lose their sources .
As others have pointed out , the answer to your question of why this is news is because of the system failure resulting is death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was written up as a tech failure (and not a people failure) because newsmen who call their sources stupid lose their sources.
As others have pointed out, the answer to your question of why this is news is because of the system failure resulting is death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935007</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1257008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did it even HAVE to be represented as an exact multiple of 0.1 seconds? As opposed to something a bit more binary-friendly, like 1/8 or 1/16th of a second? Was this just a case of 1980s Waterfall Design Paradigm, where somebody who didn't necessarily understand the precise characteristics of the hardware involved pulled the 1/10 second specification out of a metaphorical hat because it sounded good, then everyone below that point was expected to just unquestioningly implement it instead of asking WHY it had to be an exact multiple of some error-prone value early in the design process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did it even HAVE to be represented as an exact multiple of 0.1 seconds ?
As opposed to something a bit more binary-friendly , like 1/8 or 1/16th of a second ?
Was this just a case of 1980s Waterfall Design Paradigm , where somebody who did n't necessarily understand the precise characteristics of the hardware involved pulled the 1/10 second specification out of a metaphorical hat because it sounded good , then everyone below that point was expected to just unquestioningly implement it instead of asking WHY it had to be an exact multiple of some error-prone value early in the design process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did it even HAVE to be represented as an exact multiple of 0.1 seconds?
As opposed to something a bit more binary-friendly, like 1/8 or 1/16th of a second?
Was this just a case of 1980s Waterfall Design Paradigm, where somebody who didn't necessarily understand the precise characteristics of the hardware involved pulled the 1/10 second specification out of a metaphorical hat because it sounded good, then everyone below that point was expected to just unquestioningly implement it instead of asking WHY it had to be an exact multiple of some error-prone value early in the design process?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933699</id>
	<title>Designed by who?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1256996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth didnt they have a clock source other than the standard one? There are numerous sources of correct time like GPS, radio, NTP, clock servers, atom clocks or add in cards. The worst possible clock source is a standard PC. This system was probably faulty by design since the simple clock hardware in a normal server isnt made for keeping exact time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth didnt they have a clock source other than the standard one ?
There are numerous sources of correct time like GPS , radio , NTP , clock servers , atom clocks or add in cards .
The worst possible clock source is a standard PC .
This system was probably faulty by design since the simple clock hardware in a normal server isnt made for keeping exact time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth didnt they have a clock source other than the standard one?
There are numerous sources of correct time like GPS, radio, NTP, clock servers, atom clocks or add in cards.
The worst possible clock source is a standard PC.
This system was probably faulty by design since the simple clock hardware in a normal server isnt made for keeping exact time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934633</id>
	<title>Numerical Analysis</title>
	<author>tkrotchko</author>
	<datestamp>1257004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, when I studied Computer Science (admittedly about 30-40 years ago), it was a requirement to study numerical analysis which basically laid out the fundamentals of how and when floating point numbers failed in binary representation.  So the idea that people in the 70's either didn't know or care about these issues isn't true.</p><p>If you haven't heard of the Euler or Runge-Kutta, you probably should before doing any sort of system design that involves floating point numbers.</p><p>I think everybody is too busy teaching programming these days to study computer science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , when I studied Computer Science ( admittedly about 30-40 years ago ) , it was a requirement to study numerical analysis which basically laid out the fundamentals of how and when floating point numbers failed in binary representation .
So the idea that people in the 70 's either did n't know or care about these issues is n't true.If you have n't heard of the Euler or Runge-Kutta , you probably should before doing any sort of system design that involves floating point numbers.I think everybody is too busy teaching programming these days to study computer science ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, when I studied Computer Science (admittedly about 30-40 years ago), it was a requirement to study numerical analysis which basically laid out the fundamentals of how and when floating point numbers failed in binary representation.
So the idea that people in the 70's either didn't know or care about these issues isn't true.If you haven't heard of the Euler or Runge-Kutta, you probably should before doing any sort of system design that involves floating point numbers.I think everybody is too busy teaching programming these days to study computer science ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933595</id>
	<title>Why the author sucks at math...</title>
	<author>allcaps</author>
	<datestamp>1256995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't we focus on the fact that without computers, even MORE people would die?  This article seems to make the conjecture that somehow these instruments are worthless, but it appears the writer of it sucks at math as well.<br>
<br>
# ppl who would die without computers -MINUS- # ppl who die with computers = # of lives SAVED by computers.<br>
<br>
That second # isn't bad, it was already there before computers came along!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't we focus on the fact that without computers , even MORE people would die ?
This article seems to make the conjecture that somehow these instruments are worthless , but it appears the writer of it sucks at math as well .
# ppl who would die without computers -MINUS- # ppl who die with computers = # of lives SAVED by computers .
That second # is n't bad , it was already there before computers came along !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't we focus on the fact that without computers, even MORE people would die?
This article seems to make the conjecture that somehow these instruments are worthless, but it appears the writer of it sucks at math as well.
# ppl who would die without computers -MINUS- # ppl who die with computers = # of lives SAVED by computers.
That second # isn't bad, it was already there before computers came along!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934711</id>
	<title>Re:24-bit registers?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1257005580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how they can accumulate errors in the first place.</p><p>You store the numbers of ticks in a 24 bit register, that gives you almost 19.5 days before it loops to 0 - so you either handle the "the timer looped" or it is required to be reset every 19 days (make it 14 for a safety margin).</p><p>You only ever multiply by 0.1 when you need the value in seconds (and why would you even need that, just work in ticks as the time unit instead of seconds).</p><p>I can't see how you could possibly accumulate floating point rounding errors. Sure if you tracked time as a floating point number and added 0.1 to it each tick. But that would be retarded in the first place for many reasons, not just because you would obviously accumulate errors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how they can accumulate errors in the first place.You store the numbers of ticks in a 24 bit register , that gives you almost 19.5 days before it loops to 0 - so you either handle the " the timer looped " or it is required to be reset every 19 days ( make it 14 for a safety margin ) .You only ever multiply by 0.1 when you need the value in seconds ( and why would you even need that , just work in ticks as the time unit instead of seconds ) .I ca n't see how you could possibly accumulate floating point rounding errors .
Sure if you tracked time as a floating point number and added 0.1 to it each tick .
But that would be retarded in the first place for many reasons , not just because you would obviously accumulate errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how they can accumulate errors in the first place.You store the numbers of ticks in a 24 bit register, that gives you almost 19.5 days before it loops to 0 - so you either handle the "the timer looped" or it is required to be reset every 19 days (make it 14 for a safety margin).You only ever multiply by 0.1 when you need the value in seconds (and why would you even need that, just work in ticks as the time unit instead of seconds).I can't see how you could possibly accumulate floating point rounding errors.
Sure if you tracked time as a floating point number and added 0.1 to it each tick.
But that would be retarded in the first place for many reasons, not just because you would obviously accumulate errors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935109</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Use fixed point numbers? You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!</p><p>Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do. You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors, most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine. If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Patriot designers did precisely this (except it was supposed to be reset every 36 hours, not 10 days), and at least 28 people died as a direct result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use fixed point numbers ?
You know , in financial apps , you never store things as floating points , use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead ! Computers do n't suck at math , those programmers do .
You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors , most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine .
If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision , you * know * that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours , just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.The Patriot designers did precisely this ( except it was supposed to be reset every 36 hours , not 10 days ) , and at least 28 people died as a direct result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use fixed point numbers?
You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do.
You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors, most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine.
If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.The Patriot designers did precisely this (except it was supposed to be reset every 36 hours, not 10 days), and at least 28 people died as a direct result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936519</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably you are an Israeli Terrorist, specialized in robber the Palestinians Land, only Zionists and their media calls the poor Palestinian people as terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably you are an Israeli Terrorist , specialized in robber the Palestinians Land , only Zionists and their media calls the poor Palestinian people as terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably you are an Israeli Terrorist, specialized in robber the Palestinians Land, only Zionists and their media calls the poor Palestinian people as terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937375</id>
	<title>man google sucks at math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i even tried 599,999,999,999,999 - 599,999,999,999,997.9 and it still equals zero</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i even tried 599,999,999,999,999 - 599,999,999,999,997.9 and it still equals zero</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i even tried 599,999,999,999,999 - 599,999,999,999,997.9 and it still equals zero</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627</id>
	<title>That is the programmer sucking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any first year compsci student should know that this happens, and should know to choose data types that can represent the data to the needed degree of accuracy.</p><p>A simple struct {int integral\_part, int decimal\_part}; would do the job for this.  Or since you care exactly about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 second increments, you could even use integral values in the first place.  With 24 bits, you can cover 19 days before it overflows, and almost half a day on top of that to provide a buffer if bad guys show up right as the scheduled reset comes up.</p><p>100 hours = 3,600,000 ticks?  Wait, summary math is wrong.  One hour = 60 minutes.  Each of those 60 minutes is 60 seconds.  60 sets of 60 seconds is 60 * 60 = 3,600 seconds per hour.  100 hours means 100*3,600 = 360,000. Either they missed a digit and the system was online for 1,000 hours straight or they added one to the final result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any first year compsci student should know that this happens , and should know to choose data types that can represent the data to the needed degree of accuracy.A simple struct { int integral \ _part , int decimal \ _part } ; would do the job for this .
Or since you care exactly about .1 second increments , you could even use integral values in the first place .
With 24 bits , you can cover 19 days before it overflows , and almost half a day on top of that to provide a buffer if bad guys show up right as the scheduled reset comes up.100 hours = 3,600,000 ticks ?
Wait , summary math is wrong .
One hour = 60 minutes .
Each of those 60 minutes is 60 seconds .
60 sets of 60 seconds is 60 * 60 = 3,600 seconds per hour .
100 hours means 100 * 3,600 = 360,000 .
Either they missed a digit and the system was online for 1,000 hours straight or they added one to the final result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any first year compsci student should know that this happens, and should know to choose data types that can represent the data to the needed degree of accuracy.A simple struct {int integral\_part, int decimal\_part}; would do the job for this.
Or since you care exactly about .1 second increments, you could even use integral values in the first place.
With 24 bits, you can cover 19 days before it overflows, and almost half a day on top of that to provide a buffer if bad guys show up right as the scheduled reset comes up.100 hours = 3,600,000 ticks?
Wait, summary math is wrong.
One hour = 60 minutes.
Each of those 60 minutes is 60 seconds.
60 sets of 60 seconds is 60 * 60 = 3,600 seconds per hour.
100 hours means 100*3,600 = 360,000.
Either they missed a digit and the system was online for 1,000 hours straight or they added one to the final result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934169</id>
	<title>Waterjet robot errors</title>
	<author>-homb-</author>
	<datestamp>1257001200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years ago I was asked to look at a waterjet robot that was behaving abnormally. The robot's task was to cut plastic sheets into square tiles as they went through it.<br>The problem is that after 30 minutes of activity the square tiles weren't so square any more, and it kept getting worse. The software engineers from the manufacturer came and went a number of times, and failed to solve the problem.</p><p>It was obvious to me that it was a compounding rounding error, so I looked at the robot's program. It said (simplified):<br>1- start at the set 0.0 coords<br>2- turn on jets<br>3- go forward 30cm<br>4- stop<br>5- go left 30cm<br>6- turn off jets<br>7- go right 30cm<br>8- goto 2</p><p>Essentially it never went back to the 0.0 coords and kept adding the errors of going left and right 30cm. It took about 30 minutes to get to the code, find the problem and solve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago I was asked to look at a waterjet robot that was behaving abnormally .
The robot 's task was to cut plastic sheets into square tiles as they went through it.The problem is that after 30 minutes of activity the square tiles were n't so square any more , and it kept getting worse .
The software engineers from the manufacturer came and went a number of times , and failed to solve the problem.It was obvious to me that it was a compounding rounding error , so I looked at the robot 's program .
It said ( simplified ) : 1- start at the set 0.0 coords2- turn on jets3- go forward 30cm4- stop5- go left 30cm6- turn off jets7- go right 30cm8- goto 2Essentially it never went back to the 0.0 coords and kept adding the errors of going left and right 30cm .
It took about 30 minutes to get to the code , find the problem and solve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago I was asked to look at a waterjet robot that was behaving abnormally.
The robot's task was to cut plastic sheets into square tiles as they went through it.The problem is that after 30 minutes of activity the square tiles weren't so square any more, and it kept getting worse.
The software engineers from the manufacturer came and went a number of times, and failed to solve the problem.It was obvious to me that it was a compounding rounding error, so I looked at the robot's program.
It said (simplified):1- start at the set 0.0 coords2- turn on jets3- go forward 30cm4- stop5- go left 30cm6- turn off jets7- go right 30cm8- goto 2Essentially it never went back to the 0.0 coords and kept adding the errors of going left and right 30cm.
It took about 30 minutes to get to the code, find the problem and solve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938091</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two comments:</p><p>1. Any article on this subject that does not discuss the acceptable accuracy required for any particular calculation is hardly worth reading. It seems to assume that all calculations have an absolute exact answer.  Should we even be discussing an article that talks about a computer not being able to "do" stuff properly, without differentiating between specification errors, coding errors, hardware errors, usage outside the spec, etc etc.?</p><p>2. The discussions of the Patriot and Ariane cases in the articles are travesties of the actual events.  Note that in both cases trying to use old software for new purposes were major factors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two comments : 1 .
Any article on this subject that does not discuss the acceptable accuracy required for any particular calculation is hardly worth reading .
It seems to assume that all calculations have an absolute exact answer .
Should we even be discussing an article that talks about a computer not being able to " do " stuff properly , without differentiating between specification errors , coding errors , hardware errors , usage outside the spec , etc etc. ? 2 .
The discussions of the Patriot and Ariane cases in the articles are travesties of the actual events .
Note that in both cases trying to use old software for new purposes were major factors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two comments:1.
Any article on this subject that does not discuss the acceptable accuracy required for any particular calculation is hardly worth reading.
It seems to assume that all calculations have an absolute exact answer.
Should we even be discussing an article that talks about a computer not being able to "do" stuff properly, without differentiating between specification errors, coding errors, hardware errors, usage outside the spec, etc etc.?2.
The discussions of the Patriot and Ariane cases in the articles are travesties of the actual events.
Note that in both cases trying to use old software for new purposes were major factors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933863</id>
	<title>"must-be-lit-majors"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256998380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authors of the article?  So it would seem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors of the article ?
So it would seem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors of the article?
So it would seem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933809</id>
	<title>Ridiculous. Patriots always win.</title>
	<author>writermike</author>
	<datestamp>1256997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, you guys can talk trash all you want, but when you say this:</p><p>&gt;&gt;Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attack</p><p>You're just lying to yourself. The Patriots defense is awesome this year. I mean, was there really ANY point for the Titans offense to show up a couple of weeks back?</p><p>And the Scuds? C'mon man. They let go their best man two seasons ago. The QB can't hit the broadside of a barn and their entire wide-receiver corp has Jello hands anyway. The missile attack is a gadget play, pure and simple. Belichick sees right through that and you know it.</p><p>Haters need to stop all the hatin' and get on the Pats bus!!!!! GO PATRIOTS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , you guys can talk trash all you want , but when you say this : &gt; &gt; Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attackYou 're just lying to yourself .
The Patriots defense is awesome this year .
I mean , was there really ANY point for the Titans offense to show up a couple of weeks back ? And the Scuds ?
C'mon man .
They let go their best man two seasons ago .
The QB ca n't hit the broadside of a barn and their entire wide-receiver corp has Jello hands anyway .
The missile attack is a gadget play , pure and simple .
Belichick sees right through that and you know it.Haters need to stop all the hatin ' and get on the Pats bus ! ! ! ! !
GO PATRIOTS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, you guys can talk trash all you want, but when you say this:&gt;&gt;Patriot defense system failing to take down a Scud missile attackYou're just lying to yourself.
The Patriots defense is awesome this year.
I mean, was there really ANY point for the Titans offense to show up a couple of weeks back?And the Scuds?
C'mon man.
They let go their best man two seasons ago.
The QB can't hit the broadside of a barn and their entire wide-receiver corp has Jello hands anyway.
The missile attack is a gadget play, pure and simple.
Belichick sees right through that and you know it.Haters need to stop all the hatin' and get on the Pats bus!!!!!
GO PATRIOTS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547</id>
	<title>Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty pathetic and negligent that software that controls explosive missles was not tested for over 100 hours of operation. That's a standard Quality Assurance procedure for even the simplest low-budget hardware...
<br> <br>
It's also pretty pathetic that the system designers implemented a broken design and did not foresee this problem. High-resolution timekeeping has been accomplished pretty successfully already...
<br> <br>
I wonder how much time and money was spent in research and development for this thing<br>
It doesn't seem like we're getting a quality product for the likely huge sum that was paid for it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty pathetic and negligent that software that controls explosive missles was not tested for over 100 hours of operation .
That 's a standard Quality Assurance procedure for even the simplest low-budget hardware.. . It 's also pretty pathetic that the system designers implemented a broken design and did not foresee this problem .
High-resolution timekeeping has been accomplished pretty successfully already.. . I wonder how much time and money was spent in research and development for this thing It does n't seem like we 're getting a quality product for the likely huge sum that was paid for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty pathetic and negligent that software that controls explosive missles was not tested for over 100 hours of operation.
That's a standard Quality Assurance procedure for even the simplest low-budget hardware...
 
It's also pretty pathetic that the system designers implemented a broken design and did not foresee this problem.
High-resolution timekeeping has been accomplished pretty successfully already...
 
I wonder how much time and money was spent in research and development for this thing
It doesn't seem like we're getting a quality product for the likely huge sum that was paid for it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934269</id>
	<title>I thought they didn't work anyway</title>
	<author>PJ6</author>
	<datestamp>1257001860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I heard the US military wildly inflated the Patriot Missile success rate to 95\% from "possibly 0\%", and tried to cover up scores of civilian deaths directly caused by them. And Raytheon couldn't get even one hit under controlled conditions. Presumably these missiles work now if they're being bought and sold, but I still haven't seen any proof. Has any non-US affiliated party released test results?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard the US military wildly inflated the Patriot Missile success rate to 95 \ % from " possibly 0 \ % " , and tried to cover up scores of civilian deaths directly caused by them .
And Raytheon could n't get even one hit under controlled conditions .
Presumably these missiles work now if they 're being bought and sold , but I still have n't seen any proof .
Has any non-US affiliated party released test results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard the US military wildly inflated the Patriot Missile success rate to 95\% from "possibly 0\%", and tried to cover up scores of civilian deaths directly caused by them.
And Raytheon couldn't get even one hit under controlled conditions.
Presumably these missiles work now if they're being bought and sold, but I still haven't seen any proof.
Has any non-US affiliated party released test results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933921</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are great... when used correctly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that is not the best example. With binary FP formats 2.0 is 1.0B+01 so it has a perfectly accurate representation, and 2.0/2.0 will be done as (1.0/1.0)B(1-1) and so will be a perfect 1.0 (1.0B+00). A better example would be 1.0/10.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that is not the best example .
With binary FP formats 2.0 is 1.0B + 01 so it has a perfectly accurate representation , and 2.0/2.0 will be done as ( 1.0/1.0 ) B ( 1-1 ) and so will be a perfect 1.0 ( 1.0B + 00 ) .
A better example would be 1.0/10.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that is not the best example.
With binary FP formats 2.0 is 1.0B+01 so it has a perfectly accurate representation, and 2.0/2.0 will be done as (1.0/1.0)B(1-1) and so will be a perfect 1.0 (1.0B+00).
A better example would be 1.0/10.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29948480</id>
	<title>Uh... because computers only have a finite number</title>
	<author>sherifffruitfly</author>
	<datestamp>1257156540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of numbers with which to approximate an infinite number system.

That's the root of the reason why the mathematical field of numerical analysis exists.

(goes to re-read QR factorization for shits n giggles)</htmltext>
<tokenext>of numbers with which to approximate an infinite number system .
That 's the root of the reason why the mathematical field of numerical analysis exists .
( goes to re-read QR factorization for shits n giggles )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of numbers with which to approximate an infinite number system.
That's the root of the reason why the mathematical field of numerical analysis exists.
(goes to re-read QR factorization for shits n giggles)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933703</id>
	<title>Your tax dollars at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not an example of computers sucking at math.</p><p>This is an example of engineers and developers failing to draw up valid requirements, failing to develop to specification, and failing to test against real-world use cases.</p><p>Management undoubtedly shares an equal if not greater portion of the blame here.  This is typical military-industrial complex, lowest-bidder contractor mentality at work, just another form of corporate welfare if the government doesn't turn around and punish shortfalls like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an example of computers sucking at math.This is an example of engineers and developers failing to draw up valid requirements , failing to develop to specification , and failing to test against real-world use cases.Management undoubtedly shares an equal if not greater portion of the blame here .
This is typical military-industrial complex , lowest-bidder contractor mentality at work , just another form of corporate welfare if the government does n't turn around and punish shortfalls like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an example of computers sucking at math.This is an example of engineers and developers failing to draw up valid requirements, failing to develop to specification, and failing to test against real-world use cases.Management undoubtedly shares an equal if not greater portion of the blame here.
This is typical military-industrial complex, lowest-bidder contractor mentality at work, just another form of corporate welfare if the government doesn't turn around and punish shortfalls like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933931</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a problem.  You keep the tick in tenths of a second.  You convert to seconds by dividing by ten in a floating point value when it's needed.  This introduces a small rounding error, and the next time you do it then it will also introduce a small rounding error.  These errors, however, are independent of each other.  You can then document the error range of the second counter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a problem .
You keep the tick in tenths of a second .
You convert to seconds by dividing by ten in a floating point value when it 's needed .
This introduces a small rounding error , and the next time you do it then it will also introduce a small rounding error .
These errors , however , are independent of each other .
You can then document the error range of the second counter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a problem.
You keep the tick in tenths of a second.
You convert to seconds by dividing by ten in a floating point value when it's needed.
This introduces a small rounding error, and the next time you do it then it will also introduce a small rounding error.
These errors, however, are independent of each other.
You can then document the error range of the second counter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935185</id>
	<title>Now I have another reason to use bc</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1257010080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I have another reason to use bc instead of Excel.</p><p>Bender:~/docs$ bc<br>bc 1.06.94<br>Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.<br>This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.<br>For details type `warranty'.<br>850*77.1<br>65535.0<br>1.0 - 0.9 - 0.1<br>0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have another reason to use bc instead of Excel.Bender : ~ /docs $ bcbc 1.06.94Copyright 1991-1994 , 1997 , 1998 , 2000 , 2004 , 2006 Free Software Foundation , Inc.This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.For details type ` warranty'.850 * 77.165535.01.0 - 0.9 - 0.10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have another reason to use bc instead of Excel.Bender:~/docs$ bcbc 1.06.94Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.For details type `warranty'.850*77.165535.01.0 - 0.9 - 0.10</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937065</id>
	<title>this isn't about computers sucking at math</title>
	<author>Klintus Fang</author>
	<datestamp>1256983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about programmers lacking basic knowledge (or at least failing to take account) of how a computer works internally.  well written and well validated software doesn't have problems like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about programmers lacking basic knowledge ( or at least failing to take account ) of how a computer works internally .
well written and well validated software does n't have problems like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about programmers lacking basic knowledge (or at least failing to take account) of how a computer works internally.
well written and well validated software doesn't have problems like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935977</id>
	<title>Re:Computers don't suck at math, some programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, too bad these programmers in the 80s didn't just use Python!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , too bad these programmers in the 80s did n't just use Python !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, too bad these programmers in the 80s didn't just use Python!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933819</id>
	<title>The old Patriot-stories, again....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw this. During Gulf-war I, or whatever it's called, Patriot did not 'miss' any target that they fired at - period. The system was never designed to destroy missiles or get direct hits, however. The original missiles were to destroy planes by going off in close proximity to the target - which they do, very successfully. Missiles like Scuds, however, are not always destroyed by this. They tend to just break up, sending the intact warhead off track, slightly. From what I know, this happened in the case mentioned.<br>I happen to have worked with this system in the mid-nineties and this was a hot topic, back then. Why the total uptime of the system would mess up tracking is beyond me. The system will track what it either sees or is told to look for. This has nothing to do with rounding errors in time. Our system back then has been online for many days without impaired ability to track anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw this .
During Gulf-war I , or whatever it 's called , Patriot did not 'miss ' any target that they fired at - period .
The system was never designed to destroy missiles or get direct hits , however .
The original missiles were to destroy planes by going off in close proximity to the target - which they do , very successfully .
Missiles like Scuds , however , are not always destroyed by this .
They tend to just break up , sending the intact warhead off track , slightly .
From what I know , this happened in the case mentioned.I happen to have worked with this system in the mid-nineties and this was a hot topic , back then .
Why the total uptime of the system would mess up tracking is beyond me .
The system will track what it either sees or is told to look for .
This has nothing to do with rounding errors in time .
Our system back then has been online for many days without impaired ability to track anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw this.
During Gulf-war I, or whatever it's called, Patriot did not 'miss' any target that they fired at - period.
The system was never designed to destroy missiles or get direct hits, however.
The original missiles were to destroy planes by going off in close proximity to the target - which they do, very successfully.
Missiles like Scuds, however, are not always destroyed by this.
They tend to just break up, sending the intact warhead off track, slightly.
From what I know, this happened in the case mentioned.I happen to have worked with this system in the mid-nineties and this was a hot topic, back then.
Why the total uptime of the system would mess up tracking is beyond me.
The system will track what it either sees or is told to look for.
This has nothing to do with rounding errors in time.
Our system back then has been online for many days without impaired ability to track anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933737</id>
	<title>Why Computer Suck At Keeping Time</title>
	<author>rocketPack</author>
	<datestamp>1256997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like the computer did the math just fine, but with a flawed clock.... That's classic GIGO!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the computer did the math just fine , but with a flawed clock.... That 's classic GIGO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the computer did the math just fine, but with a flawed clock.... That's classic GIGO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937089</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do. </i></p><p>THANK YOU. I thought I had lost my mind reading post after post that went into details, suggested fixed point etc. but not made the simple statement you did. The story's statement that "computers suck at math" is drivel. It's not worthy of a 10 year old let alone a computer professional - which many of us supposedly are.</p><p>I am HORRIFIED by how poorly understood floating point is among programmers. The idea that someone would blame the computer for this sort of thing smacks of an unprofessional idiot blaming his tool (when he has simply been using the wrong tool all along).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers do n't suck at math , those programmers do .
THANK YOU .
I thought I had lost my mind reading post after post that went into details , suggested fixed point etc .
but not made the simple statement you did .
The story 's statement that " computers suck at math " is drivel .
It 's not worthy of a 10 year old let alone a computer professional - which many of us supposedly are.I am HORRIFIED by how poorly understood floating point is among programmers .
The idea that someone would blame the computer for this sort of thing smacks of an unprofessional idiot blaming his tool ( when he has simply been using the wrong tool all along ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do.
THANK YOU.
I thought I had lost my mind reading post after post that went into details, suggested fixed point etc.
but not made the simple statement you did.
The story's statement that "computers suck at math" is drivel.
It's not worthy of a 10 year old let alone a computer professional - which many of us supposedly are.I am HORRIFIED by how poorly understood floating point is among programmers.
The idea that someone would blame the computer for this sort of thing smacks of an unprofessional idiot blaming his tool (when he has simply been using the wrong tool all along).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936673</id>
	<title>Still alive and well</title>
	<author>cdn-programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1256980140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap like this was alive and well when I was in uni and its still alive and well.</p><p>Witness:  Limits to Growth written by  Meadows et al:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Limits\_to\_Growth" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Limits\_to\_Growth</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Consider that book was written in 1972.  I was programming computers in 1972.  I actually did a course in numerical analysis in 1972 and just re-read the first 10 pages or so.  I happen to have read a masters thesis that came out of the Colorado School of Mines where the author stated Meadows' Runge Kutta Numerical Integrations did not converge.</p><p>Yet that book is still often quoted.  Its been flawed from the get go.  So consider something else!  How fast were the machines that Meadows used?  How big?  What would be the MOST SOPHISTICATED model he could use at the time.  How could \_anyone\_ take seriously predictions made by a primitive model run on such a machine?</p><p>Witness:  The current discussion about Global Warming and Climate Change.  The change in CO2 over the last 100 years is about 100 ppm if you can believe the data.  This is 100/1,000,000 = 0.0001.  Now the thing is this.  A 32 bit float holds about 6.9 digits of precision.  Lets call it 7 digits.  If one were to add a whole number of some kind to the fractional change of the CO2 as measured relative to the total gases in the atmosphere then one has 7-4 = 3 digits or less to work with.</p><p>Of course one can use a double precision float.  That isn't my point.  One has to be an EXPERT in order to avoid huge problems with propagating rounding errors.</p><p>Its not just about pretending computers use base 10 when they don't, its about knowing the actual properties of a number of type float and what the consequences are when we use it.</p><p>In the case of that rocket I suspect the rounding error can be solved by normalizing everything so the time line is not in seconds but is actually in clock ticks... as accurately as they can be determined of course.</p><p>But in my career I have seen so few programmers who can do this that I've never even needed to look at a finger or a toe for something to count on.  Nada - never met one.</p><p>I'll give another example.  More than one project team that I worked with had no idea how floats even work!  To sit there and try to use floats for their Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable and then say they can't understand why nothing will balance?  Arrghh!  IMHO its downright incompetence.  They needed to use comp which COBOL supported which is base 10 or normalize all their money into pennies and handle the decimal when the data was read in and printed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap like this was alive and well when I was in uni and its still alive and well.Witness : Limits to Growth written by Meadows et al : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Limits \ _to \ _Growth [ wikipedia.org ] Consider that book was written in 1972 .
I was programming computers in 1972 .
I actually did a course in numerical analysis in 1972 and just re-read the first 10 pages or so .
I happen to have read a masters thesis that came out of the Colorado School of Mines where the author stated Meadows ' Runge Kutta Numerical Integrations did not converge.Yet that book is still often quoted .
Its been flawed from the get go .
So consider something else !
How fast were the machines that Meadows used ?
How big ?
What would be the MOST SOPHISTICATED model he could use at the time .
How could \ _anyone \ _ take seriously predictions made by a primitive model run on such a machine ? Witness : The current discussion about Global Warming and Climate Change .
The change in CO2 over the last 100 years is about 100 ppm if you can believe the data .
This is 100/1,000,000 = 0.0001 .
Now the thing is this .
A 32 bit float holds about 6.9 digits of precision .
Lets call it 7 digits .
If one were to add a whole number of some kind to the fractional change of the CO2 as measured relative to the total gases in the atmosphere then one has 7-4 = 3 digits or less to work with.Of course one can use a double precision float .
That is n't my point .
One has to be an EXPERT in order to avoid huge problems with propagating rounding errors.Its not just about pretending computers use base 10 when they do n't , its about knowing the actual properties of a number of type float and what the consequences are when we use it.In the case of that rocket I suspect the rounding error can be solved by normalizing everything so the time line is not in seconds but is actually in clock ticks... as accurately as they can be determined of course.But in my career I have seen so few programmers who can do this that I 've never even needed to look at a finger or a toe for something to count on .
Nada - never met one.I 'll give another example .
More than one project team that I worked with had no idea how floats even work !
To sit there and try to use floats for their Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable and then say they ca n't understand why nothing will balance ?
Arrghh ! IMHO its downright incompetence .
They needed to use comp which COBOL supported which is base 10 or normalize all their money into pennies and handle the decimal when the data was read in and printed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap like this was alive and well when I was in uni and its still alive and well.Witness:  Limits to Growth written by  Meadows et al:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Limits\_to\_Growth [wikipedia.org]Consider that book was written in 1972.
I was programming computers in 1972.
I actually did a course in numerical analysis in 1972 and just re-read the first 10 pages or so.
I happen to have read a masters thesis that came out of the Colorado School of Mines where the author stated Meadows' Runge Kutta Numerical Integrations did not converge.Yet that book is still often quoted.
Its been flawed from the get go.
So consider something else!
How fast were the machines that Meadows used?
How big?
What would be the MOST SOPHISTICATED model he could use at the time.
How could \_anyone\_ take seriously predictions made by a primitive model run on such a machine?Witness:  The current discussion about Global Warming and Climate Change.
The change in CO2 over the last 100 years is about 100 ppm if you can believe the data.
This is 100/1,000,000 = 0.0001.
Now the thing is this.
A 32 bit float holds about 6.9 digits of precision.
Lets call it 7 digits.
If one were to add a whole number of some kind to the fractional change of the CO2 as measured relative to the total gases in the atmosphere then one has 7-4 = 3 digits or less to work with.Of course one can use a double precision float.
That isn't my point.
One has to be an EXPERT in order to avoid huge problems with propagating rounding errors.Its not just about pretending computers use base 10 when they don't, its about knowing the actual properties of a number of type float and what the consequences are when we use it.In the case of that rocket I suspect the rounding error can be solved by normalizing everything so the time line is not in seconds but is actually in clock ticks... as accurately as they can be determined of course.But in my career I have seen so few programmers who can do this that I've never even needed to look at a finger or a toe for something to count on.
Nada - never met one.I'll give another example.
More than one project team that I worked with had no idea how floats even work!
To sit there and try to use floats for their Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable and then say they can't understand why nothing will balance?
Arrghh!  IMHO its downright incompetence.
They needed to use comp which COBOL supported which is base 10 or normalize all their money into pennies and handle the decimal when the data was read in and printed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657</id>
	<title>Computers are great... when used correctly.</title>
	<author>thesandbender</author>
	<datestamp>1256996400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author seems to imply that computers can't do simple base 10 math without errors.  That's not entirely true if you have a fixed precision.  You use an integer and shift it so there is no decimal portion, in this case you would make your base a 1/10th of second instead of 1 second.  Addition, subtraction and multiplication will be error free.  You'll still have a problem with division and other operations but in this case that doesn't sound like their primary issue.

It wasn't the computer's fault that the designers did not account for the fact that 2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's today.  It usually just equals a really good approximation of 1 that's "close enough".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author seems to imply that computers ca n't do simple base 10 math without errors .
That 's not entirely true if you have a fixed precision .
You use an integer and shift it so there is no decimal portion , in this case you would make your base a 1/10th of second instead of 1 second .
Addition , subtraction and multiplication will be error free .
You 'll still have a problem with division and other operations but in this case that does n't sound like their primary issue .
It was n't the computer 's fault that the designers did not account for the fact that 2.0/2.0 ! = 1 on almost all FPU 's today .
It usually just equals a really good approximation of 1 that 's " close enough " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author seems to imply that computers can't do simple base 10 math without errors.
That's not entirely true if you have a fixed precision.
You use an integer and shift it so there is no decimal portion, in this case you would make your base a 1/10th of second instead of 1 second.
Addition, subtraction and multiplication will be error free.
You'll still have a problem with division and other operations but in this case that doesn't sound like their primary issue.
It wasn't the computer's fault that the designers did not account for the fact that 2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's today.
It usually just equals a really good approximation of 1 that's "close enough".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>TCPhotography</author>
	<datestamp>1257000780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  The Patriot version used in the Gulf War (round 1) was not designed to be used against Tactical Ballistic Missiles (like SCUDs), but against opposition aircraft.  A fighter isn't going to be flying as fast, and thus the error is going to be much smaller, which means the missile would probably still find the plane.</p><p>2.  The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).  Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.</p><p>3.  Systems don't always work right the first time, and if you do a full on test to start with, and something goes wrong, it's a lot harder to find where the error is than if you test one part at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The Patriot version used in the Gulf War ( round 1 ) was not designed to be used against Tactical Ballistic Missiles ( like SCUDs ) , but against opposition aircraft .
A fighter is n't going to be flying as fast , and thus the error is going to be much smaller , which means the missile would probably still find the plane.2 .
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs ( after the software upgrades ) .
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.3 .
Systems do n't always work right the first time , and if you do a full on test to start with , and something goes wrong , it 's a lot harder to find where the error is than if you test one part at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The Patriot version used in the Gulf War (round 1) was not designed to be used against Tactical Ballistic Missiles (like SCUDs), but against opposition aircraft.
A fighter isn't going to be flying as fast, and thus the error is going to be much smaller, which means the missile would probably still find the plane.2.
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.3.
Systems don't always work right the first time, and if you do a full on test to start with, and something goes wrong, it's a lot harder to find where the error is than if you test one part at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939867</id>
	<title>Re:24-bit registers?</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1257017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not necessarily be the number of bits in the register, if your counter is not being ticked up at exactly 0.1 seconds.  I think this may be what the article was trying to say.  For example, what if the embedded system ran at 33 and 1/3 Mhz, and therefore needed to increment the counter every 3,333,333 and 1/3 clock cycles?  Except that there is no such thing as a 1/3 of a clock cycle to the software running on the system, so the counter is incremented every 33,333,333th clock cycle instead.  Now you've just introduced a tiny accumulating error of 10ns per second, which can start to add up after many hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not necessarily be the number of bits in the register , if your counter is not being ticked up at exactly 0.1 seconds .
I think this may be what the article was trying to say .
For example , what if the embedded system ran at 33 and 1/3 Mhz , and therefore needed to increment the counter every 3,333,333 and 1/3 clock cycles ?
Except that there is no such thing as a 1/3 of a clock cycle to the software running on the system , so the counter is incremented every 33,333,333th clock cycle instead .
Now you 've just introduced a tiny accumulating error of 10ns per second , which can start to add up after many hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not necessarily be the number of bits in the register, if your counter is not being ticked up at exactly 0.1 seconds.
I think this may be what the article was trying to say.
For example, what if the embedded system ran at 33 and 1/3 Mhz, and therefore needed to increment the counter every 3,333,333 and 1/3 clock cycles?
Except that there is no such thing as a 1/3 of a clock cycle to the software running on the system, so the counter is incremented every 33,333,333th clock cycle instead.
Now you've just introduced a tiny accumulating error of 10ns per second, which can start to add up after many hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936705</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>d\_54321</author>
	<datestamp>1256980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although this is an old story, the message is timeless (pardon the pun).<br>The news here is for the stupid people who read this as either an important reminder, or first time exposure to a lesson in what not to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although this is an old story , the message is timeless ( pardon the pun ) .The news here is for the stupid people who read this as either an important reminder , or first time exposure to a lesson in what not to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although this is an old story, the message is timeless (pardon the pun).The news here is for the stupid people who read this as either an important reminder, or first time exposure to a lesson in what not to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933735</id>
	<title>Re:That is the programmer sucking</title>
	<author>T-Bone-T</author>
	<datestamp>1256997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary math isn't wrong. Try reading the part about ticks per second again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary math is n't wrong .
Try reading the part about ticks per second again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary math isn't wrong.
Try reading the part about ticks per second again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936445</id>
	<title>Better still...</title>
	<author>ClickOnThis</author>
	<datestamp>1257021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...store the time as <i>two</i> integers: one for seconds, and the other for milliseconds, microseconds, or whatever you wish.  You need to handle the carry, but that's the price you pay when you want that kind of resolution with a 24-bit register  Lots of time-critical software running on satellites uses an approach similar to this.</p><p>To quote Kernighan and Plauger in <i>The Elements of Programming Style</i>: "10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0."  This Patriot episode exemplifies their words tragically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...store the time as two integers : one for seconds , and the other for milliseconds , microseconds , or whatever you wish .
You need to handle the carry , but that 's the price you pay when you want that kind of resolution with a 24-bit register Lots of time-critical software running on satellites uses an approach similar to this.To quote Kernighan and Plauger in The Elements of Programming Style : " 10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0 .
" This Patriot episode exemplifies their words tragically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...store the time as two integers: one for seconds, and the other for milliseconds, microseconds, or whatever you wish.
You need to handle the carry, but that's the price you pay when you want that kind of resolution with a 24-bit register  Lots of time-critical software running on satellites uses an approach similar to this.To quote Kernighan and Plauger in The Elements of Programming Style: "10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.
"  This Patriot episode exemplifies their words tragically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933801</id>
	<title>Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The how story and most of the posts are one giant Flamebait.</p><p>Nice how all the Slashdot geniuses seem to think they could have done a better job had the *only* been there 20-30 years ago, before most of these would be heroes were even born.</p><p>Then there are morons who get on their high horse about corporate welfare bullshit. Sure, no one at Raytheon gave a shit about our soldiers, they just wanted to make a buck.</p><p>What a disgusting way to start a Saturday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The how story and most of the posts are one giant Flamebait.Nice how all the Slashdot geniuses seem to think they could have done a better job had the * only * been there 20-30 years ago , before most of these would be heroes were even born.Then there are morons who get on their high horse about corporate welfare bullshit .
Sure , no one at Raytheon gave a shit about our soldiers , they just wanted to make a buck.What a disgusting way to start a Saturday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The how story and most of the posts are one giant Flamebait.Nice how all the Slashdot geniuses seem to think they could have done a better job had the *only* been there 20-30 years ago, before most of these would be heroes were even born.Then there are morons who get on their high horse about corporate welfare bullshit.
Sure, no one at Raytheon gave a shit about our soldiers, they just wanted to make a buck.What a disgusting way to start a Saturday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron\_Dome" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Iron dome</a> [wikipedia.org] system works perfectly. It's just not capable of protecting any kind of large area. It can, however, make a military base invulnerable to rocket fire, and they're working on making the system mobile, to protect tanks. The only real problem left for doing this is the power requirements.</p><p>For ships, another such system exists, and protected the ships perfectly well from those same rockets fired by hizbullah. It's "protection range" ? In the largest deployment about 200 square meters.</p><p>There is also the problem that a downed missile presents. What is a "downed missile" ? Well it's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that's about to crash into the ground. So far so good.</p><p>So what is "the ground" in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ? Well it's the center of the city that's controlled by the terrorists. It's their human shields. Markets, schools, you name it. So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as "Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten". That is, by the way, the literal truth, even if the rather important detail of a rocket's presence above said kindergarten is left out. In the deployed missile intercept installations "the ground" is chosen to be something else, like the ocean surface.</p><p>Missile intercept systems are no solution for terrorism. Most unfortunately, the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place. Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").</p><p>These systems work, they are deployed successfully in the field. They're no silver bullets, and any bullet that's fired, whether a missile or a missile-intercept-missile, will eventually hit the ground at rather high speeds. Which makes their use above urban environments result in civilian casualties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iron dome [ wikipedia.org ] system works perfectly .
It 's just not capable of protecting any kind of large area .
It can , however , make a military base invulnerable to rocket fire , and they 're working on making the system mobile , to protect tanks .
The only real problem left for doing this is the power requirements.For ships , another such system exists , and protected the ships perfectly well from those same rockets fired by hizbullah .
It 's " protection range " ?
In the largest deployment about 200 square meters.There is also the problem that a downed missile presents .
What is a " downed missile " ?
Well it 's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that 's about to crash into the ground .
So far so good.So what is " the ground " in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ?
Well it 's the center of the city that 's controlled by the terrorists .
It 's their human shields .
Markets , schools , you name it .
So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as " Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten " .
That is , by the way , the literal truth , even if the rather important detail of a rocket 's presence above said kindergarten is left out .
In the deployed missile intercept installations " the ground " is chosen to be something else , like the ocean surface.Missile intercept systems are no solution for terrorism .
Most unfortunately , the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they 're fired in the first place .
Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists , or someone does it for them ( that 's called " occupation " ) .These systems work , they are deployed successfully in the field .
They 're no silver bullets , and any bullet that 's fired , whether a missile or a missile-intercept-missile , will eventually hit the ground at rather high speeds .
Which makes their use above urban environments result in civilian casualties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iron dome [wikipedia.org] system works perfectly.
It's just not capable of protecting any kind of large area.
It can, however, make a military base invulnerable to rocket fire, and they're working on making the system mobile, to protect tanks.
The only real problem left for doing this is the power requirements.For ships, another such system exists, and protected the ships perfectly well from those same rockets fired by hizbullah.
It's "protection range" ?
In the largest deployment about 200 square meters.There is also the problem that a downed missile presents.
What is a "downed missile" ?
Well it's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that's about to crash into the ground.
So far so good.So what is "the ground" in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ?
Well it's the center of the city that's controlled by the terrorists.
It's their human shields.
Markets, schools, you name it.
So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as "Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten".
That is, by the way, the literal truth, even if the rather important detail of a rocket's presence above said kindergarten is left out.
In the deployed missile intercept installations "the ground" is chosen to be something else, like the ocean surface.Missile intercept systems are no solution for terrorism.
Most unfortunately, the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place.
Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").These systems work, they are deployed successfully in the field.
They're no silver bullets, and any bullet that's fired, whether a missile or a missile-intercept-missile, will eventually hit the ground at rather high speeds.
Which makes their use above urban environments result in civilian casualties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935227</id>
	<title>Re:This problem has been solved since the 1960s</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257010560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the OP was correct, then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them. My bet is in reality, they simply underestimated the actual error term, but did everything else correct.</p></div></blockquote><p>Read <a href="http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/455.f96/disasters.html" title="umn.edu">this</a> [umn.edu], and take into account that the Patriot system was designed to be reset once every 36 hours to protect against arithmetic drift, but the operators didn't want to switch them off in case a Scud flew over while they were rebooting.</p><p>The engineers didn't fail. The manual writers, or the trainers did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the OP was correct , then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them .
My bet is in reality , they simply underestimated the actual error term , but did everything else correct.Read this [ umn.edu ] , and take into account that the Patriot system was designed to be reset once every 36 hours to protect against arithmetic drift , but the operators did n't want to switch them off in case a Scud flew over while they were rebooting.The engineers did n't fail .
The manual writers , or the trainers did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the OP was correct, then PATRIOT failed because it did none of them.
My bet is in reality, they simply underestimated the actual error term, but did everything else correct.Read this [umn.edu], and take into account that the Patriot system was designed to be reset once every 36 hours to protect against arithmetic drift, but the operators didn't want to switch them off in case a Scud flew over while they were rebooting.The engineers didn't fail.
The manual writers, or the trainers did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933905</id>
	<title>Fixed, but a day late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixed, but a day late. for a 2 week turn around time from when this was fault-isolated to a fix was fielded in SW Asia is fast for government work. Sadly, 28 American soldiers died. The computer found a possible ABT. When it verified the track, it wasnt where its programming told it to be. Track was dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed , but a day late .
for a 2 week turn around time from when this was fault-isolated to a fix was fielded in SW Asia is fast for government work .
Sadly , 28 American soldiers died .
The computer found a possible ABT .
When it verified the track , it wasnt where its programming told it to be .
Track was dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed, but a day late.
for a 2 week turn around time from when this was fault-isolated to a fix was fielded in SW Asia is fast for government work.
Sadly, 28 American soldiers died.
The computer found a possible ABT.
When it verified the track, it wasnt where its programming told it to be.
Track was dropped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933961</id>
	<title>The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1256999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>In the mid 70s a programmer was being sued for damages caused by an error in his code but the judge ruled that programming was not a profession the way, say, civil engineering is, so there was no liability implied.</li>
<li>Intel came out with the 8086 and doomed semiconductors to millions of monkeys banging on keyboards as they got degrees in "computer science".</li>
<li>The network externality of software interoperability gave Microsoft a natural monopoly in setting software standards.</li>
<li>The network externality of, ahem, network standards gave the government a natural monopoloy in setting networking standards.</li>
<li>Abandon all hope...</li>
</ol><p>
Oh, I suppose I should say something more proximate:
</p><p>
The failure to unify optimizing JIT compilers with memoized (encached, tabled, etc.) demand driven (lazy) computations so that we can express our maths independent of precision without performance penalties.  This, of course, is directly related to the failure to maintain dependency graphs so that when under continuous demand (observation) demand driven computation unifies with data driven (data flow) computation -- and when no longer under demand (observation), memoizations (encachments, tabled entries, etc.) can be voided until the next demand requires recomputation.
</p><p>
I'll get around to working on it one of these days.  Its just that, like many other things, I thought it was obvious enough 25 years ago that someone who had some serious money would have backed that kind of programming environment.  I told Ray in 1985 Microsoft would do lots of damage, but he didn't believe me and even I didn't think it would be <i>this</i> bad...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the mid 70s a programmer was being sued for damages caused by an error in his code but the judge ruled that programming was not a profession the way , say , civil engineering is , so there was no liability implied .
Intel came out with the 8086 and doomed semiconductors to millions of monkeys banging on keyboards as they got degrees in " computer science " .
The network externality of software interoperability gave Microsoft a natural monopoly in setting software standards .
The network externality of , ahem , network standards gave the government a natural monopoloy in setting networking standards .
Abandon all hope.. . Oh , I suppose I should say something more proximate : The failure to unify optimizing JIT compilers with memoized ( encached , tabled , etc .
) demand driven ( lazy ) computations so that we can express our maths independent of precision without performance penalties .
This , of course , is directly related to the failure to maintain dependency graphs so that when under continuous demand ( observation ) demand driven computation unifies with data driven ( data flow ) computation -- and when no longer under demand ( observation ) , memoizations ( encachments , tabled entries , etc .
) can be voided until the next demand requires recomputation .
I 'll get around to working on it one of these days .
Its just that , like many other things , I thought it was obvious enough 25 years ago that someone who had some serious money would have backed that kind of programming environment .
I told Ray in 1985 Microsoft would do lots of damage , but he did n't believe me and even I did n't think it would be this bad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In the mid 70s a programmer was being sued for damages caused by an error in his code but the judge ruled that programming was not a profession the way, say, civil engineering is, so there was no liability implied.
Intel came out with the 8086 and doomed semiconductors to millions of monkeys banging on keyboards as they got degrees in "computer science".
The network externality of software interoperability gave Microsoft a natural monopoly in setting software standards.
The network externality of, ahem, network standards gave the government a natural monopoloy in setting networking standards.
Abandon all hope...

Oh, I suppose I should say something more proximate:

The failure to unify optimizing JIT compilers with memoized (encached, tabled, etc.
) demand driven (lazy) computations so that we can express our maths independent of precision without performance penalties.
This, of course, is directly related to the failure to maintain dependency graphs so that when under continuous demand (observation) demand driven computation unifies with data driven (data flow) computation -- and when no longer under demand (observation), memoizations (encachments, tabled entries, etc.
) can be voided until the next demand requires recomputation.
I'll get around to working on it one of these days.
Its just that, like many other things, I thought it was obvious enough 25 years ago that someone who had some serious money would have backed that kind of programming environment.
I told Ray in 1985 Microsoft would do lots of damage, but he didn't believe me and even I didn't think it would be this bad...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933929</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Beale</author>
	<datestamp>1256998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using this case as an example:
If you use an integer variable for your tick, it's never rounded. Whenever you use it to calculate a time, then you can multiply it by 0.1 to get a much more accurate number than one obtained with the cumulative error of adding on a rounded floating point 0.1 to a rounded floating point sum every tick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using this case as an example : If you use an integer variable for your tick , it 's never rounded .
Whenever you use it to calculate a time , then you can multiply it by 0.1 to get a much more accurate number than one obtained with the cumulative error of adding on a rounded floating point 0.1 to a rounded floating point sum every tick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using this case as an example:
If you use an integer variable for your tick, it's never rounded.
Whenever you use it to calculate a time, then you can multiply it by 0.1 to get a much more accurate number than one obtained with the cumulative error of adding on a rounded floating point 0.1 to a rounded floating point sum every tick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933985</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are great... when used correctly.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's today</p></div><p>Uh, what?  In any binary floating point representation, 2.0 will be represented as 1x2^1.  Dividing 1x2^1 by 1x2^1 will involve (integer) dividing the mantissas of the first by the second, giving 1/1 = 1.  Then the exponent of the second will be (integer) subtracted from the first, giving 1-1 = 0.  The result will be 1x2^0, which is already normalised so the final normalisation step will not do anything.  Designing an FPU that would give the wrong answer for that calculation would be very difficult...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2.0/2.0 ! = 1 on almost all FPU 's todayUh , what ?
In any binary floating point representation , 2.0 will be represented as 1x2 ^ 1 .
Dividing 1x2 ^ 1 by 1x2 ^ 1 will involve ( integer ) dividing the mantissas of the first by the second , giving 1/1 = 1 .
Then the exponent of the second will be ( integer ) subtracted from the first , giving 1-1 = 0 .
The result will be 1x2 ^ 0 , which is already normalised so the final normalisation step will not do anything .
Designing an FPU that would give the wrong answer for that calculation would be very difficult.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's todayUh, what?
In any binary floating point representation, 2.0 will be represented as 1x2^1.
Dividing 1x2^1 by 1x2^1 will involve (integer) dividing the mantissas of the first by the second, giving 1/1 = 1.
Then the exponent of the second will be (integer) subtracted from the first, giving 1-1 = 0.
The result will be 1x2^0, which is already normalised so the final normalisation step will not do anything.
Designing an FPU that would give the wrong answer for that calculation would be very difficult...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935051</id>
	<title>Rhapsody in blue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The local Saudi station had just finished a piece and was a few seconds into Rhapsody in Blue when the interruption came. They stopped the music and told all listeners to take shelter (alternating in Arabic then English). The sirens on our base did not go off - at all. I was writing a letter to my sister and commented that one of these times somebody is going to get hurt for not responding to these alarms (it was late in the war at this point and people were starting to get complacent in the alarms as we were all believers in the "infallible" Patriot).</p><p>It may have been that they *knew* it was not destined for us - but we usually got alarms for anything in the area. Jubail (where I was) was right in-line for the path to Dhahran. We *should* have got the alarm. Those people would (should) have lived had they got the alarm.</p><p>I did not find out until the next morning that the Army barracks had been hit.</p><p>Anonymous -  because I forgot the login to my account about 8 years ago and haven't created another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The local Saudi station had just finished a piece and was a few seconds into Rhapsody in Blue when the interruption came .
They stopped the music and told all listeners to take shelter ( alternating in Arabic then English ) .
The sirens on our base did not go off - at all .
I was writing a letter to my sister and commented that one of these times somebody is going to get hurt for not responding to these alarms ( it was late in the war at this point and people were starting to get complacent in the alarms as we were all believers in the " infallible " Patriot ) .It may have been that they * knew * it was not destined for us - but we usually got alarms for anything in the area .
Jubail ( where I was ) was right in-line for the path to Dhahran .
We * should * have got the alarm .
Those people would ( should ) have lived had they got the alarm.I did not find out until the next morning that the Army barracks had been hit.Anonymous - because I forgot the login to my account about 8 years ago and have n't created another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local Saudi station had just finished a piece and was a few seconds into Rhapsody in Blue when the interruption came.
They stopped the music and told all listeners to take shelter (alternating in Arabic then English).
The sirens on our base did not go off - at all.
I was writing a letter to my sister and commented that one of these times somebody is going to get hurt for not responding to these alarms (it was late in the war at this point and people were starting to get complacent in the alarms as we were all believers in the "infallible" Patriot).It may have been that they *knew* it was not destined for us - but we usually got alarms for anything in the area.
Jubail (where I was) was right in-line for the path to Dhahran.
We *should* have got the alarm.
Those people would (should) have lived had they got the alarm.I did not find out until the next morning that the Army barracks had been hit.Anonymous -  because I forgot the login to my account about 8 years ago and haven't created another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934399</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1257002820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact it was released a couple of days BEFORE the incident. Report states that it failed to be deployed due to logistics issues</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact it was released a couple of days BEFORE the incident .
Report states that it failed to be deployed due to logistics issues</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact it was released a couple of days BEFORE the incident.
Report states that it failed to be deployed due to logistics issues</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933939</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>Bacon Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1256999100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans have had to handle what happens when your second and minute counters overflow for centuries.  Teaching a machine to do it can't possibly be that hard.  How about you simply write your code to handle resetting the clock's counter back to zero as necessary?  You know, like we already do every 12 hours?  (Or 24 for military time.)</p><p>As long as you don't overflow, you're not confused about what the clock timer means.  Rarely does a precision counter like this really need to know when it started or how long it's been running except in the short term.  In this case, from the time the target is detected to the time the interceptor is detonated.  You might be able to initialize and start the precision clock as late as when the target is detected.  Or perhaps use the sign bit to signify a rollover or something.  You can't tell me this isn't a problem that's already been solved hundreds of times in dozens of acceptable ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans have had to handle what happens when your second and minute counters overflow for centuries .
Teaching a machine to do it ca n't possibly be that hard .
How about you simply write your code to handle resetting the clock 's counter back to zero as necessary ?
You know , like we already do every 12 hours ?
( Or 24 for military time .
) As long as you do n't overflow , you 're not confused about what the clock timer means .
Rarely does a precision counter like this really need to know when it started or how long it 's been running except in the short term .
In this case , from the time the target is detected to the time the interceptor is detonated .
You might be able to initialize and start the precision clock as late as when the target is detected .
Or perhaps use the sign bit to signify a rollover or something .
You ca n't tell me this is n't a problem that 's already been solved hundreds of times in dozens of acceptable ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans have had to handle what happens when your second and minute counters overflow for centuries.
Teaching a machine to do it can't possibly be that hard.
How about you simply write your code to handle resetting the clock's counter back to zero as necessary?
You know, like we already do every 12 hours?
(Or 24 for military time.
)As long as you don't overflow, you're not confused about what the clock timer means.
Rarely does a precision counter like this really need to know when it started or how long it's been running except in the short term.
In this case, from the time the target is detected to the time the interceptor is detonated.
You might be able to initialize and start the precision clock as late as when the target is detected.
Or perhaps use the sign bit to signify a rollover or something.
You can't tell me this isn't a problem that's already been solved hundreds of times in dozens of acceptable ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934905</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1257007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most unfortunately, the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place. Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").</p></div><p>This is exactly what's wrong with you and most of the Israeli government. First, you call it "unfortunate" that the only solution is to prevent the rockets being fired. Bit of a clue there. In any case, the only way that can be done in any permanent manner is to not give Hezbollah any reason to fire rockets in the first place. Not "occupation".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most unfortunately , the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they 're fired in the first place .
Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists , or someone does it for them ( that 's called " occupation " ) .This is exactly what 's wrong with you and most of the Israeli government .
First , you call it " unfortunate " that the only solution is to prevent the rockets being fired .
Bit of a clue there .
In any case , the only way that can be done in any permanent manner is to not give Hezbollah any reason to fire rockets in the first place .
Not " occupation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most unfortunately, the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place.
Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").This is exactly what's wrong with you and most of the Israeli government.
First, you call it "unfortunate" that the only solution is to prevent the rockets being fired.
Bit of a clue there.
In any case, the only way that can be done in any permanent manner is to not give Hezbollah any reason to fire rockets in the first place.
Not "occupation".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937113</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1256983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.  The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).  Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.</p></div><p>Let's pretend that that record isn't heavily contested, and that the SA-2 isn't 20 years older than the Patriot - The SCUDs didn't have massive ECM systems, while the B-52s had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs ( after the software upgrades ) .
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.Let 's pretend that that record is n't heavily contested , and that the SA-2 is n't 20 years older than the Patriot - The SCUDs did n't have massive ECM systems , while the B-52s had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.Let's pretend that that record isn't heavily contested, and that the SA-2 isn't 20 years older than the Patriot - The SCUDs didn't have massive ECM systems, while the B-52s had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256997420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it's out by a tiny amount.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Sorry, 0.1 seconds can be represented EXACTLY in such a system. It doesn't even need floating-point. Here is how such a system could represent the durations of 0.1 seconds, 25.7 seconds, and 123.4 seconds: 1, 257, and 1234. So like you say, fixed-point works here. No need for anything beyond integers in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , 0.1 seconds can not be expressed accurately as a binary number , so when it 's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it 's out by a tiny amount .
Sorry , 0.1 seconds can be represented EXACTLY in such a system .
It does n't even need floating-point .
Here is how such a system could represent the durations of 0.1 seconds , 25.7 seconds , and 123.4 seconds : 1 , 257 , and 1234 .
So like you say , fixed-point works here .
No need for anything beyond integers in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it's out by a tiny amount.
Sorry, 0.1 seconds can be represented EXACTLY in such a system.
It doesn't even need floating-point.
Here is how such a system could represent the durations of 0.1 seconds, 25.7 seconds, and 123.4 seconds: 1, 257, and 1234.
So like you say, fixed-point works here.
No need for anything beyond integers in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</id>
	<title>What?!</title>
	<author>jointm1k</author>
	<datestamp>1256995860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up. Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register</p></div> </blockquote><p>All they had to do is use integers, where a value of 1 represents 0.1 s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up .
Unfortunately , 0.1 seconds can not be expressed accurately as a binary number , so when it 's shoehorned into a 24-bit register All they had to do is use integers , where a value of 1 represents 0.1 s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up.
Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register All they had to do is use integers, where a value of 1 represents 0.1 s.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934131</id>
	<title>Fixed point sucks, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really what you want is to store numbers "rationally" as a numerator and a denominator.</p><p>You get all the advantages of fixed point, and you can also represent fractional numbers exactly so that (1/3)*3 == 1</p><p>If you use a proper language like Scheme for your calculations, it's just built in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really what you want is to store numbers " rationally " as a numerator and a denominator.You get all the advantages of fixed point , and you can also represent fractional numbers exactly so that ( 1/3 ) * 3 = = 1If you use a proper language like Scheme for your calculations , it 's just built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really what you want is to store numbers "rationally" as a numerator and a denominator.You get all the advantages of fixed point, and you can also represent fractional numbers exactly so that (1/3)*3 == 1If you use a proper language like Scheme for your calculations, it's just built in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934829</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>slackergod</author>
	<datestamp>1257006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, failing that, measure time in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.125 (1/8th) second increments instead of 0.1, and then it will align with the binary floating point representation. Voila, no error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , failing that , measure time in .125 ( 1/8th ) second increments instead of 0.1 , and then it will align with the binary floating point representation .
Voila , no error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, failing that, measure time in .125 (1/8th) second increments instead of 0.1, and then it will align with the binary floating point representation.
Voila, no error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933787</id>
	<title>WHY MAGAZINE EDITORS SUCK AT MATH:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's take the double precision floating point representation as an example. It uses 64 bits to store each number and permits values from about -10308 to 10308 (minus and plus 1 followed by 308 zeros, respectively) to be stored. </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's take the double precision floating point representation as an example .
It uses 64 bits to store each number and permits values from about -10308 to 10308 ( minus and plus 1 followed by 308 zeros , respectively ) to be stored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's take the double precision floating point representation as an example.
It uses 64 bits to store each number and permits values from about -10308 to 10308 (minus and plus 1 followed by 308 zeros, respectively) to be stored. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936757</id>
	<title>So, then, to sum up:</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1256980680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A designer used a horribly inappropriate data representation, which led to fatal bugs in the program, and this is proof that computers are bad at math.  Uh-huh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A designer used a horribly inappropriate data representation , which led to fatal bugs in the program , and this is proof that computers are bad at math .
Uh-huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A designer used a horribly inappropriate data representation, which led to fatal bugs in the program, and this is proof that computers are bad at math.
Uh-huh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This particular story took place in 1991, and most of the code for Patriot was written in the 70s - needless to say, software QA was a little more lax back then.  The fix for this problem was out a couple days after the incident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular story took place in 1991 , and most of the code for Patriot was written in the 70s - needless to say , software QA was a little more lax back then .
The fix for this problem was out a couple days after the incident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular story took place in 1991, and most of the code for Patriot was written in the 70s - needless to say, software QA was a little more lax back then.
The fix for this problem was out a couple days after the incident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935209</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously flawed reporting</title>
	<author>dcoe</author>
	<datestamp>1257010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the GAO report: http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat6/145960.pdf</p><p>Or, so you can get back to uninformed ranting as quickly as possible, skip to page five and ignore the part about the system's internal clock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the GAO report : http : //archive.gao.gov/t2pbat6/145960.pdfOr , so you can get back to uninformed ranting as quickly as possible , skip to page five and ignore the part about the system 's internal clock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the GAO report: http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat6/145960.pdfOr, so you can get back to uninformed ranting as quickly as possible, skip to page five and ignore the part about the system's internal clock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</id>
	<title>Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use fixed point numbers? You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!<br> <br>

Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do. You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors, most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine. If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use fixed point numbers ?
You know , in financial apps , you never store things as floating points , use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead !
Computers do n't suck at math , those programmers do .
You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors , most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine .
If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision , you * know * that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours , just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use fixed point numbers?
You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!
Computers don't suck at math, those programmers do.
You can get any precision mathematics on even 8 bit processors, most of the time compilers will figure out everything for you just fine.
If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935013</id>
	<title>Flaw in design</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1257008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So because the design of the system results in it failing and that leads to computers sucking at math, I don't think that works.  Really because someone thought of a broken method for design the computer sucks at doing the programs math.  So I really don't know why you'd blame the entire field of computer mathematics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So because the design of the system results in it failing and that leads to computers sucking at math , I do n't think that works .
Really because someone thought of a broken method for design the computer sucks at doing the programs math .
So I really do n't know why you 'd blame the entire field of computer mathematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because the design of the system results in it failing and that leads to computers sucking at math, I don't think that works.
Really because someone thought of a broken method for design the computer sucks at doing the programs math.
So I really don't know why you'd blame the entire field of computer mathematics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936161</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257018720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1/10 of a second has the same magic properties as 1/50 and 1/100 of a second, if obtained from 50Hz power grid: every device plugged into the same grid gets the same number of ticks. The frequency may float a little up or down, but remains consistent throughout the whole grid, meaning no costly, unreliable and difficult to implement synchronization subsystems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1/10 of a second has the same magic properties as 1/50 and 1/100 of a second , if obtained from 50Hz power grid : every device plugged into the same grid gets the same number of ticks .
The frequency may float a little up or down , but remains consistent throughout the whole grid , meaning no costly , unreliable and difficult to implement synchronization subsystems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1/10 of a second has the same magic properties as 1/50 and 1/100 of a second, if obtained from 50Hz power grid: every device plugged into the same grid gets the same number of ticks.
The frequency may float a little up or down, but remains consistent throughout the whole grid, meaning no costly, unreliable and difficult to implement synchronization subsystems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938239</id>
	<title>Why wanna-be coders suck at Math</title>
	<author>Domini</author>
	<datestamp>1256997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is what the article should have been called.</p><p>Anyone worth their salt in numerical analysis and scientific computation would not make this error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is what the article should have been called.Anyone worth their salt in numerical analysis and scientific computation would not make this error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is what the article should have been called.Anyone worth their salt in numerical analysis and scientific computation would not make this error.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934471</id>
	<title>Computers don't suck at math</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1257003300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This headline, while captivating, is inaccurate - computers excel at math, and can do complex calculations faster and better than any other device I know of. BUT, the issue here was the fundamental design which pitted the software design against the hardware limitations. The author of the post above (with the benefit of hindsight) was able to describe the problem in just a handful of words, begging the obvious solution - the sampling should have been done in increments that suited the 24 bit registers the values would reside in for calculations - they should never have left the system to "round" any values. Design flaw, plain and simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This headline , while captivating , is inaccurate - computers excel at math , and can do complex calculations faster and better than any other device I know of .
BUT , the issue here was the fundamental design which pitted the software design against the hardware limitations .
The author of the post above ( with the benefit of hindsight ) was able to describe the problem in just a handful of words , begging the obvious solution - the sampling should have been done in increments that suited the 24 bit registers the values would reside in for calculations - they should never have left the system to " round " any values .
Design flaw , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This headline, while captivating, is inaccurate - computers excel at math, and can do complex calculations faster and better than any other device I know of.
BUT, the issue here was the fundamental design which pitted the software design against the hardware limitations.
The author of the post above (with the benefit of hindsight) was able to describe the problem in just a handful of words, begging the obvious solution - the sampling should have been done in increments that suited the 24 bit registers the values would reside in for calculations - they should never have left the system to "round" any values.
Design flaw, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938213</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1256996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or switch to an interval that doesn't have roundoff problems...  Though more issues may arise from that.<br><br>However I don't like the title or implications of the article.  The problem isn't that computers are bad at math, it is that some of the engineers are either bad at math or bad at verifying the code.  The computer was undoubtedly performing the requested operations perfectly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or switch to an interval that does n't have roundoff problems... Though more issues may arise from that.However I do n't like the title or implications of the article .
The problem is n't that computers are bad at math , it is that some of the engineers are either bad at math or bad at verifying the code .
The computer was undoubtedly performing the requested operations perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or switch to an interval that doesn't have roundoff problems...  Though more issues may arise from that.However I don't like the title or implications of the article.
The problem isn't that computers are bad at math, it is that some of the engineers are either bad at math or bad at verifying the code.
The computer was undoubtedly performing the requested operations perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935171</id>
	<title>Re:may not exactly be the programmers</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyway, whoever manufactured the Patriot, I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.</p></div></blockquote><p>Amen to that. This strikes me as a conscious engineering decision followed by a failure to impress on the end users the consequence of not correctly mantaining their gear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , whoever manufactured the Patriot , I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.Amen to that .
This strikes me as a conscious engineering decision followed by a failure to impress on the end users the consequence of not correctly mantaining their gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, whoever manufactured the Patriot, I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.Amen to that.
This strikes me as a conscious engineering decision followed by a failure to impress on the end users the consequence of not correctly mantaining their gear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939845</id>
	<title>Unsurprising results</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1257017220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Turns out computers do exactly what they're programmed to do. Who knew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out computers do exactly what they 're programmed to do .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out computers do exactly what they're programmed to do.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933557</id>
	<title>Computers can do math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematica.  'nuff said.</p><p>the IEEE specification stuff is literally designed knowning there will be calculation errors.  Don't use this" create your own number system like mathematica does for 100\% accuracy always.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematica .
'nuff said.the IEEE specification stuff is literally designed knowning there will be calculation errors .
Do n't use this " create your own number system like mathematica does for 100 \ % accuracy always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematica.
'nuff said.the IEEE specification stuff is literally designed knowning there will be calculation errors.
Don't use this" create your own number system like mathematica does for 100\% accuracy always.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935759</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous. Patriots always win.</title>
	<author>ikedasquid</author>
	<datestamp>1257015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  Nobody understands the words coming out of your mouth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , this is / .
Nobody understands the words coming out of your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, this is /.
Nobody understands the words coming out of your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934357</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1257002520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The corralary to this is that computers neither suck or don't suck at math.  Computer don't really know how to do anything much. Look at the 6502, it can ADC, ASL, BRK, CMP, AND, INC, and a few other things. AFAIR, it did all of these things wonderfully.  Modern processors basically have the same commands, fancied up a bit, and AFAIK, they do these commands wonderfully.
<p>
So, as always, the only things that suck at math are the people programming the computers.  These people also probably suck at many other things, which is why they are essentially working for the government instead of building devices that have to compete on the free market.
</p><p>
But, seriously, these issues are well known, will pretty good solutions, such as scaling which is what the parent was talking about. There are other solutions such as creating a cross referenced code for certain conditions.  There are books to help programmers who have not yet acquired the skill to work with number, such as the Numerical Recipies series.  There is software to help programmers who do not want to or cannot learn how to work with numbers, such as IMSL library, which, if memeory serves, allows the user to include a target precision.  Then there are thousands of basic introductory computer books that will helpthe novice software developer understand rounding errors and how to control them. For instance, one does not do += on floats, or use == for that matter.
</p><p>
So the only issue left is the resolution of the hardware.  If<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 seconds is not enough, then that is the responsiblity of the people who specified the hardware. I know many clocks that accuracely increment up to 83 times per second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corralary to this is that computers neither suck or do n't suck at math .
Computer do n't really know how to do anything much .
Look at the 6502 , it can ADC , ASL , BRK , CMP , AND , INC , and a few other things .
AFAIR , it did all of these things wonderfully .
Modern processors basically have the same commands , fancied up a bit , and AFAIK , they do these commands wonderfully .
So , as always , the only things that suck at math are the people programming the computers .
These people also probably suck at many other things , which is why they are essentially working for the government instead of building devices that have to compete on the free market .
But , seriously , these issues are well known , will pretty good solutions , such as scaling which is what the parent was talking about .
There are other solutions such as creating a cross referenced code for certain conditions .
There are books to help programmers who have not yet acquired the skill to work with number , such as the Numerical Recipies series .
There is software to help programmers who do not want to or can not learn how to work with numbers , such as IMSL library , which , if memeory serves , allows the user to include a target precision .
Then there are thousands of basic introductory computer books that will helpthe novice software developer understand rounding errors and how to control them .
For instance , one does not do + = on floats , or use = = for that matter .
So the only issue left is the resolution of the hardware .
If .1 seconds is not enough , then that is the responsiblity of the people who specified the hardware .
I know many clocks that accuracely increment up to 83 times per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corralary to this is that computers neither suck or don't suck at math.
Computer don't really know how to do anything much.
Look at the 6502, it can ADC, ASL, BRK, CMP, AND, INC, and a few other things.
AFAIR, it did all of these things wonderfully.
Modern processors basically have the same commands, fancied up a bit, and AFAIK, they do these commands wonderfully.
So, as always, the only things that suck at math are the people programming the computers.
These people also probably suck at many other things, which is why they are essentially working for the government instead of building devices that have to compete on the free market.
But, seriously, these issues are well known, will pretty good solutions, such as scaling which is what the parent was talking about.
There are other solutions such as creating a cross referenced code for certain conditions.
There are books to help programmers who have not yet acquired the skill to work with number, such as the Numerical Recipies series.
There is software to help programmers who do not want to or cannot learn how to work with numbers, such as IMSL library, which, if memeory serves, allows the user to include a target precision.
Then there are thousands of basic introductory computer books that will helpthe novice software developer understand rounding errors and how to control them.
For instance, one does not do += on floats, or use == for that matter.
So the only issue left is the resolution of the hardware.
If .1 seconds is not enough, then that is the responsiblity of the people who specified the hardware.
I know many clocks that accuracely increment up to 83 times per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936897</id>
	<title>let me rephrase the title:</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1256981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why Computer <b>Programmers</b> Suck at Math</p><p>There's a whole discipline called "Numerical Analysis".  Whoever programmed the Patriot's tracking software should look into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why Computer Programmers Suck at MathThere 's a whole discipline called " Numerical Analysis " .
Whoever programmed the Patriot 's tracking software should look into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why Computer Programmers Suck at MathThere's a whole discipline called "Numerical Analysis".
Whoever programmed the Patriot's tracking software should look into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935551</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In your case, you are not storing the fractional values<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1, 25.7 and 123.4. You are storing the integers 1, 257 and 1234 and then dividing by ten after retrieving them form the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In your case , you are not storing the fractional values .1 , 25.7 and 123.4 .
You are storing the integers 1 , 257 and 1234 and then dividing by ten after retrieving them form the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your case, you are not storing the fractional values .1, 25.7 and 123.4.
You are storing the integers 1, 257 and 1234 and then dividing by ten after retrieving them form the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934265</id>
	<title>hawgwash</title>
	<author>ifeelswine</author>
	<datestamp>1257001860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my computer sucks at math because it doesn't apply itself. period. end of discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>my computer sucks at math because it does n't apply itself .
period. end of discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my computer sucks at math because it doesn't apply itself.
period. end of discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934185</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately. It's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal's shortcomings (or instinctively compensate for or avoid them) and then blame computers for binary's incompatibility with decimal.</p></div><p>Using a programming language that can handle these cases automatically would help. Lisp for example has no issue 1/3 or even imaginary (2+3i) numbers.</p><p>Part of the problem is we're trying to shoehorn solutions into the mainstream languages that may not be up to the task.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately .
It 's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal 's shortcomings ( or instinctively compensate for or avoid them ) and then blame computers for binary 's incompatibility with decimal.Using a programming language that can handle these cases automatically would help .
Lisp for example has no issue 1/3 or even imaginary ( 2 + 3i ) numbers.Part of the problem is we 're trying to shoehorn solutions into the mainstream languages that may not be up to the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately.
It's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal's shortcomings (or instinctively compensate for or avoid them) and then blame computers for binary's incompatibility with decimal.Using a programming language that can handle these cases automatically would help.
Lisp for example has no issue 1/3 or even imaginary (2+3i) numbers.Part of the problem is we're trying to shoehorn solutions into the mainstream languages that may not be up to the task.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936537</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1257022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again someone suggests using a software solution (64-bit math library) when the problem was clearly in the hardware.
<br> <br>
A 24-bit clock register is lightweight indeed. If we presume a 0.1-second clock rate (as mentioned in the article), the register would overflow in less than 20 days. I don't know how long they kept these powered up but 20 days is not a very long time.
<br> <br>
But the main issue here was the imprecision of the clock itself. Math libraries had nothing to do with it... the clock rate was simply not precise enough, and that error accumulated. No amount of software massaging is going to correct that, unless you synch with an external clock somewhere.
<br> <br>
They simply chose inappropriate hardware for the job: (1) The <b>hardware</b> clock was simply off. It did not keep time to the requisite degree of accuracy. (2) The resolution of the clock should have been much better than merely 0.1 second. And (3) the clock register was indeed too small to make (1) and (2) practical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again someone suggests using a software solution ( 64-bit math library ) when the problem was clearly in the hardware .
A 24-bit clock register is lightweight indeed .
If we presume a 0.1-second clock rate ( as mentioned in the article ) , the register would overflow in less than 20 days .
I do n't know how long they kept these powered up but 20 days is not a very long time .
But the main issue here was the imprecision of the clock itself .
Math libraries had nothing to do with it... the clock rate was simply not precise enough , and that error accumulated .
No amount of software massaging is going to correct that , unless you synch with an external clock somewhere .
They simply chose inappropriate hardware for the job : ( 1 ) The hardware clock was simply off .
It did not keep time to the requisite degree of accuracy .
( 2 ) The resolution of the clock should have been much better than merely 0.1 second .
And ( 3 ) the clock register was indeed too small to make ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again someone suggests using a software solution (64-bit math library) when the problem was clearly in the hardware.
A 24-bit clock register is lightweight indeed.
If we presume a 0.1-second clock rate (as mentioned in the article), the register would overflow in less than 20 days.
I don't know how long they kept these powered up but 20 days is not a very long time.
But the main issue here was the imprecision of the clock itself.
Math libraries had nothing to do with it... the clock rate was simply not precise enough, and that error accumulated.
No amount of software massaging is going to correct that, unless you synch with an external clock somewhere.
They simply chose inappropriate hardware for the job: (1) The hardware clock was simply off.
It did not keep time to the requisite degree of accuracy.
(2) The resolution of the clock should have been much better than merely 0.1 second.
And (3) the clock register was indeed too small to make (1) and (2) practical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934421</id>
	<title>major fail</title>
	<author>Syntroxis</author>
	<datestamp>1257003060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was working for a small aerospace startup. We had a project to test molecular beam epitaxy on a project to fly on the shuttle.  I built most of their PC,s, ran the network, provided support, etc.  Our platform, at the time, was the 486 processor.  This new-fangled processor the 586, came out, and the lil PhD that did the orbital dynamics of the project just had to have one.  Having been the victim of several arrows in the back, I had a rather adamant aversion to using version 1.0 of anything.  I argued, and won, we would not use the 586 yet.<p>

Welllllll, they snuck one past me as a piece of "test" equipment.</p><p>

The project was placed on the shuttle, and when it came time to fly, it was lifted from the payload bay by the arm, and activated.  It could not lock guidance. It would only wobble. Long story short, after several attempts, re-uploading flight software, and a second flight on the shuttle. The project was scrapped.</p><p>

Several  weeks after the second flight, I made sure that the articles about the Intel 586 floating point error were in everyones' in-box.  About two years later, the company went under.  Doubt it was because of the problem with the 586.... it was more because the company was a threat to the traditional way NASA does business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working for a small aerospace startup .
We had a project to test molecular beam epitaxy on a project to fly on the shuttle .
I built most of their PC,s , ran the network , provided support , etc .
Our platform , at the time , was the 486 processor .
This new-fangled processor the 586 , came out , and the lil PhD that did the orbital dynamics of the project just had to have one .
Having been the victim of several arrows in the back , I had a rather adamant aversion to using version 1.0 of anything .
I argued , and won , we would not use the 586 yet .
Welllllll , they snuck one past me as a piece of " test " equipment .
The project was placed on the shuttle , and when it came time to fly , it was lifted from the payload bay by the arm , and activated .
It could not lock guidance .
It would only wobble .
Long story short , after several attempts , re-uploading flight software , and a second flight on the shuttle .
The project was scrapped .
Several weeks after the second flight , I made sure that the articles about the Intel 586 floating point error were in everyones ' in-box .
About two years later , the company went under .
Doubt it was because of the problem with the 586.... it was more because the company was a threat to the traditional way NASA does business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working for a small aerospace startup.
We had a project to test molecular beam epitaxy on a project to fly on the shuttle.
I built most of their PC,s, ran the network, provided support, etc.
Our platform, at the time, was the 486 processor.
This new-fangled processor the 586, came out, and the lil PhD that did the orbital dynamics of the project just had to have one.
Having been the victim of several arrows in the back, I had a rather adamant aversion to using version 1.0 of anything.
I argued, and won, we would not use the 586 yet.
Welllllll, they snuck one past me as a piece of "test" equipment.
The project was placed on the shuttle, and when it came time to fly, it was lifted from the payload bay by the arm, and activated.
It could not lock guidance.
It would only wobble.
Long story short, after several attempts, re-uploading flight software, and a second flight on the shuttle.
The project was scrapped.
Several  weeks after the second flight, I made sure that the articles about the Intel 586 floating point error were in everyones' in-box.
About two years later, the company went under.
Doubt it was because of the problem with the 586.... it was more because the company was a threat to the traditional way NASA does business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29943026</id>
	<title>Round it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't "they" just add in the rounding off amount times "time elapsed"?  Is that so hard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't " they " just add in the rounding off amount times " time elapsed " ?
Is that so hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't "they" just add in the rounding off amount times "time elapsed"?
Is that so hard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29954794</id>
	<title>Re:may not exactly be the programmers</title>
	<author>BranMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257155460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked on it - PATRIOT was indeed Raytheon designed and built.  The missiles were dual-sourced - Raytheon and Boing both made them.  PATRIOT was indeed made to replace Hawk.   Little anecdote about the two systems:  Hawk was not reliable enough, so every component had to be doubled - so everything had a spare and you could keep the system up.   PATRIOT passed the reliability test so that it didn't have to have everything doubled - but supposedly was designed to support that.  Damned if I knew how they were going to do that - the Transmitter in particular was pretty darned packed.  I shudder to think of working on it with twice the gear stuffed into it - and a megawatt of 208 3 phase power running through it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked on it - PATRIOT was indeed Raytheon designed and built .
The missiles were dual-sourced - Raytheon and Boing both made them .
PATRIOT was indeed made to replace Hawk .
Little anecdote about the two systems : Hawk was not reliable enough , so every component had to be doubled - so everything had a spare and you could keep the system up .
PATRIOT passed the reliability test so that it did n't have to have everything doubled - but supposedly was designed to support that .
Damned if I knew how they were going to do that - the Transmitter in particular was pretty darned packed .
I shudder to think of working on it with twice the gear stuffed into it - and a megawatt of 208 3 phase power running through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked on it - PATRIOT was indeed Raytheon designed and built.
The missiles were dual-sourced - Raytheon and Boing both made them.
PATRIOT was indeed made to replace Hawk.
Little anecdote about the two systems:  Hawk was not reliable enough, so every component had to be doubled - so everything had a spare and you could keep the system up.
PATRIOT passed the reliability test so that it didn't have to have everything doubled - but supposedly was designed to support that.
Damned if I knew how they were going to do that - the Transmitter in particular was pretty darned packed.
I shudder to think of working on it with twice the gear stuffed into it - and a megawatt of 208 3 phase power running through it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936623</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1256979780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be fair, if even the guys starting the missiles don't know where the things will come down, how should the space laser?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be fair , if even the guys starting the missiles do n't know where the things will come down , how should the space laser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be fair, if even the guys starting the missiles don't know where the things will come down, how should the space laser?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935383</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even worse it seems to ignore the fact that, while those 22 people may have "paid with their lives" because of the Patriot error, hundreds or even thousands of others were saved in the cases where the software worked. Is he arguing that if the Patriot system never existed, those 22 people would be alive? No, they'd still be dead, and so would hundreds of others who are alive now.</p><p>"Perspective" seems to be in short supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse it seems to ignore the fact that , while those 22 people may have " paid with their lives " because of the Patriot error , hundreds or even thousands of others were saved in the cases where the software worked .
Is he arguing that if the Patriot system never existed , those 22 people would be alive ?
No , they 'd still be dead , and so would hundreds of others who are alive now .
" Perspective " seems to be in short supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse it seems to ignore the fact that, while those 22 people may have "paid with their lives" because of the Patriot error, hundreds or even thousands of others were saved in the cases where the software worked.
Is he arguing that if the Patriot system never existed, those 22 people would be alive?
No, they'd still be dead, and so would hundreds of others who are alive now.
"Perspective" seems to be in short supply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939647</id>
	<title>Re:don't blame the computer for bad programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best Post Ever</p><p>Computers and the software running on them are made by people, and therefore real people are responsible for any avoidable errors that may occur. This attempt to shift fault from developer to product is like a grocery store blaming the steak for being contaminated, and shows just how inept and delusional those who authorized this decision were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best Post EverComputers and the software running on them are made by people , and therefore real people are responsible for any avoidable errors that may occur .
This attempt to shift fault from developer to product is like a grocery store blaming the steak for being contaminated , and shows just how inept and delusional those who authorized this decision were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best Post EverComputers and the software running on them are made by people, and therefore real people are responsible for any avoidable errors that may occur.
This attempt to shift fault from developer to product is like a grocery store blaming the steak for being contaminated, and shows just how inept and delusional those who authorized this decision were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29942414</id>
	<title>IEEE floating point</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257098700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For starters, IEEE floating point is a lousy design, from its needlessly complex special cases to its atrocious error handling.  That kind of poor and overly complex design is symptomatic for a lot of floating point software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , IEEE floating point is a lousy design , from its needlessly complex special cases to its atrocious error handling .
That kind of poor and overly complex design is symptomatic for a lot of floating point software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, IEEE floating point is a lousy design, from its needlessly complex special cases to its atrocious error handling.
That kind of poor and overly complex design is symptomatic for a lot of floating point software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933677</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does fixed point help you on this? The only reason to use fixed point is to speed up calculations on slow embedded systems that are making lots of realtime calculations and using floating point calculations would be too slow. It definitely does not get you out of rounding errors, in fact in many cases it would be far worse than doing floating point in terms of accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does fixed point help you on this ?
The only reason to use fixed point is to speed up calculations on slow embedded systems that are making lots of realtime calculations and using floating point calculations would be too slow .
It definitely does not get you out of rounding errors , in fact in many cases it would be far worse than doing floating point in terms of accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does fixed point help you on this?
The only reason to use fixed point is to speed up calculations on slow embedded systems that are making lots of realtime calculations and using floating point calculations would be too slow.
It definitely does not get you out of rounding errors, in fact in many cases it would be far worse than doing floating point in terms of accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934031</id>
	<title>Re:This problem has been solved since the 1960s</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257000000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a is a decent solution.  b and c, not as much.  There are two other good solutions though:</p><p>d) instead of trying to use a nice number in base 10 as your increment, use a nice number in binary as your increment.  Since you're actually doing math in binary and all....</p><p>e) use a counter so you keep track of the number of increments that have passed instead of trying to count in seconds (this one is similar to your a).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a is a decent solution .
b and c , not as much .
There are two other good solutions though : d ) instead of trying to use a nice number in base 10 as your increment , use a nice number in binary as your increment .
Since you 're actually doing math in binary and all....e ) use a counter so you keep track of the number of increments that have passed instead of trying to count in seconds ( this one is similar to your a ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a is a decent solution.
b and c, not as much.
There are two other good solutions though:d) instead of trying to use a nice number in base 10 as your increment, use a nice number in binary as your increment.
Since you're actually doing math in binary and all....e) use a counter so you keep track of the number of increments that have passed instead of trying to count in seconds (this one is similar to your a).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933901</id>
	<title>In one sentence?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Paul Lockhart said: Math is about creativity!</p><p>There. I saved you a hell of a lot of time! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Paul Lockhart said : Math is about creativity ! There .
I saved you a hell of a lot of time !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Paul Lockhart said: Math is about creativity!There.
I saved you a hell of a lot of time!
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933609</id>
	<title>Didn't read TFA but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Found this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/28/us/war-in-the-gulf-the-families-scud-s-lethal-hit-takes-first-3-female-soldiers.html?pagewanted=2" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [nytimes.com] matching the criteria only dated February 28, 1991.</p><p>It just didn't seem plausible did it... How this correlates to modern computer FP calculations is beyond me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found this article [ nytimes.com ] matching the criteria only dated February 28 , 1991.It just did n't seem plausible did it... How this correlates to modern computer FP calculations is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found this article [nytimes.com] matching the criteria only dated February 28, 1991.It just didn't seem plausible did it... How this correlates to modern computer FP calculations is beyond me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935157</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say to RTFA, but it's so badly written that it doesn't make it clear that this is precisely what they did.</p><p>The problem is that the system clock was counting in 0.1 second increments, but the targeting maths was being done in units of 1s, and the conversion from one to the other was done with insufficient precision for the operating conditions.</p><p>There are more details <a href="http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/455.f96/disasters.html" title="umn.edu">here</a> [umn.edu].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say to RTFA , but it 's so badly written that it does n't make it clear that this is precisely what they did.The problem is that the system clock was counting in 0.1 second increments , but the targeting maths was being done in units of 1s , and the conversion from one to the other was done with insufficient precision for the operating conditions.There are more details here [ umn.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say to RTFA, but it's so badly written that it doesn't make it clear that this is precisely what they did.The problem is that the system clock was counting in 0.1 second increments, but the targeting maths was being done in units of 1s, and the conversion from one to the other was done with insufficient precision for the operating conditions.There are more details here [umn.edu].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939951</id>
	<title>Everyone knows</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1257019020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone (or at least most software people) know you can't do <i>exact</i> math in hardware. Usually it's good enough, but mission critical and financial applications have to have their calculations implements in software (eg. BigDecimal in Java).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone ( or at least most software people ) know you ca n't do exact math in hardware .
Usually it 's good enough , but mission critical and financial applications have to have their calculations implements in software ( eg .
BigDecimal in Java ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone (or at least most software people) know you can't do exact math in hardware.
Usually it's good enough, but mission critical and financial applications have to have their calculations implements in software (eg.
BigDecimal in Java).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935153</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are great... when used correctly.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the fact that 2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's today.</p></div><p>
Facts are supposed to be true.<br>
<br>
You have taken a little bit of knowledge (that you shouldnt normally compare floats for equality) but have raced to the wrong conclusion.<br>
<br>
2.0/2.0 is equal to 1.0 and no modern IEEE-compliant FPU will tell you any different, either.<br>
<br>
If we changed your argument to, say, (0.2*10/2.0) != 1.0 then you would be right, if the programming language specified that these calculations were to be performed in IEEE floats or some other base-2 type (because 0.2 cannot be accurately represented)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact that 2.0/2.0 ! = 1 on almost all FPU 's today .
Facts are supposed to be true .
You have taken a little bit of knowledge ( that you shouldnt normally compare floats for equality ) but have raced to the wrong conclusion .
2.0/2.0 is equal to 1.0 and no modern IEEE-compliant FPU will tell you any different , either .
If we changed your argument to , say , ( 0.2 * 10/2.0 ) ! = 1.0 then you would be right , if the programming language specified that these calculations were to be performed in IEEE floats or some other base-2 type ( because 0.2 can not be accurately represented )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact that 2.0/2.0 != 1 on almost all FPU's today.
Facts are supposed to be true.
You have taken a little bit of knowledge (that you shouldnt normally compare floats for equality) but have raced to the wrong conclusion.
2.0/2.0 is equal to 1.0 and no modern IEEE-compliant FPU will tell you any different, either.
If we changed your argument to, say, (0.2*10/2.0) != 1.0 then you would be right, if the programming language specified that these calculations were to be performed in IEEE floats or some other base-2 type (because 0.2 cannot be accurately represented)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933605</id>
	<title>retrospective technological excuses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>'<i>The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time, which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up. Unfortunately, <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/why-computers-suck-at-maths-644771" title="techradar.com" rel="nofollow">0.1 seconds</a> [techradar.com] cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it's out by a tiny amount.<br> <br>

But all these tiny amounts add up. At the time of the missile attack, the system had been running for about 100 hours, or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific. Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m</i>'<br> <br>

Nonsense, it's perfectly possible to design a computer that can accurately tell the time. What caused Patriot to fail was that over an expended period, the clocks went out of sync, between the various dispersed sub-systems. As Patriot wasn't designed to be switched on for so long.<br> <br>

Regardless, what isn't possible is is to design a system that can accurately track and shoot down missiles in flight. As the Patriot defence system so patently demonstrated. As I recall, it succeeded less than 50 \% of the time. Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project. Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time , which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up .
Unfortunately , 0.1 seconds [ techradar.com ] can not be expressed accurately as a binary number , so when it 's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it 's out by a tiny amount .
But all these tiny amounts add up .
At the time of the missile attack , the system had been running for about 100 hours , or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific .
Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds , during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m ' Nonsense , it 's perfectly possible to design a computer that can accurately tell the time .
What caused Patriot to fail was that over an expended period , the clocks went out of sync , between the various dispersed sub-systems .
As Patriot was n't designed to be switched on for so long .
Regardless , what is n't possible is is to design a system that can accurately track and shoot down missiles in flight .
As the Patriot defence system so patently demonstrated .
As I recall , it succeeded less than 50 \ % of the time .
Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project .
Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The calculation of where to look for confirmation of an incoming missile requires knowledge of the system time, which is stored as the number of 0.1-second ticks since the system was started up.
Unfortunately, 0.1 seconds [techradar.com] cannot be expressed accurately as a binary number, so when it's shoehorned into a 24-bit register -- as used in the Patriot system -- it's out by a tiny amount.
But all these tiny amounts add up.
At the time of the missile attack, the system had been running for about 100 hours, or 3,600,000 ticks to be more specific.
Multiplying this count by the tiny error led to a total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m' 

Nonsense, it's perfectly possible to design a computer that can accurately tell the time.
What caused Patriot to fail was that over an expended period, the clocks went out of sync, between the various dispersed sub-systems.
As Patriot wasn't designed to be switched on for so long.
Regardless, what isn't possible is is to design a system that can accurately track and shoot down missiles in flight.
As the Patriot defence system so patently demonstrated.
As I recall, it succeeded less than 50 \% of the time.
Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project.
Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055</id>
	<title>may not exactly be the programmers</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1257000180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclosure: I am a programmer.</p><p>I had a conjecture that the Patriot missile was a Raytheon project.  Not a particularly well-based speculation, but I did the RFA for confirmation.  For some reason, they did not mention the manufacturer.  They felt free to mention Intel and Google, but I guess the manufacturer was an advertiser.</p><p>As it happens, 40 years ago I was an end user of a Raytheon air-defense missile system called the Hawk.  There was a common derogatory phrase about Raytheon.  I guess we might call it a meme now.<br>It was cute and perhaps relevant to this article, but it has been so long, I can not reproduce it.</p><p>Anyway, whoever manufactured the Patriot, I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.</p><p>A war story.  This is not all Raytheon's fault, but it makes a nice slander.</p><p>At Kassel, there was a NSA antenna farm with a hawk battery next to it.  It was noteworthy, but not unusual, for Migs to buzz the antenna farm.  I guess it happened every few months.  Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure : I am a programmer.I had a conjecture that the Patriot missile was a Raytheon project .
Not a particularly well-based speculation , but I did the RFA for confirmation .
For some reason , they did not mention the manufacturer .
They felt free to mention Intel and Google , but I guess the manufacturer was an advertiser.As it happens , 40 years ago I was an end user of a Raytheon air-defense missile system called the Hawk .
There was a common derogatory phrase about Raytheon .
I guess we might call it a meme now.It was cute and perhaps relevant to this article , but it has been so long , I can not reproduce it.Anyway , whoever manufactured the Patriot , I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.A war story .
This is not all Raytheon 's fault , but it makes a nice slander.At Kassel , there was a NSA antenna farm with a hawk battery next to it .
It was noteworthy , but not unusual , for Migs to buzz the antenna farm .
I guess it happened every few months .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure: I am a programmer.I had a conjecture that the Patriot missile was a Raytheon project.
Not a particularly well-based speculation, but I did the RFA for confirmation.
For some reason, they did not mention the manufacturer.
They felt free to mention Intel and Google, but I guess the manufacturer was an advertiser.As it happens, 40 years ago I was an end user of a Raytheon air-defense missile system called the Hawk.
There was a common derogatory phrase about Raytheon.
I guess we might call it a meme now.It was cute and perhaps relevant to this article, but it has been so long, I can not reproduce it.Anyway, whoever manufactured the Patriot, I sort of doubt that the first cause was a bad programmer.A war story.
This is not all Raytheon's fault, but it makes a nice slander.At Kassel, there was a NSA antenna farm with a hawk battery next to it.
It was noteworthy, but not unusual, for Migs to buzz the antenna farm.
I guess it happened every few months.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933583</id>
	<title>Why bad programmers suck at math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, in other words, the programmers for this piece of "mission-critical" software were not aware of floating point arithmetic and error propagation? What does that have to do with "computers" in general?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in other words , the programmers for this piece of " mission-critical " software were not aware of floating point arithmetic and error propagation ?
What does that have to do with " computers " in general ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in other words, the programmers for this piece of "mission-critical" software were not aware of floating point arithmetic and error propagation?
What does that have to do with "computers" in general?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939139</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1257007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the basic idea of object oriented program.</p><p>tentime  # a ten time uses a tenths of a second counter<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; long int clicks # clicks represent the tenths<br>tentime -&gt; out = clicks<br>tentime -&gt; seconds = round (div (clicks,10) + ((mod(clicks,10) &gt; 4 ? 1 : 0)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the basic idea of object oriented program.tentime # a ten time uses a tenths of a second counter       long int clicks # clicks represent the tenthstentime - &gt; out = clickstentime - &gt; seconds = round ( div ( clicks,10 ) + ( ( mod ( clicks,10 ) &gt; 4 ?
1 : 0 ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the basic idea of object oriented program.tentime  # a ten time uses a tenths of a second counter
      long int clicks # clicks represent the tenthstentime -&gt; out = clickstentime -&gt; seconds = round (div (clicks,10) + ((mod(clicks,10) &gt; 4 ?
1 : 0) ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935099</id>
	<title>Tenths of a second? Why oh why...</title>
	<author>shovas</author>
	<datestamp>1257009240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who stores or processes time in tenths of a second? Milleseconds, microseconds, but tenths of a second? I think somebody got their source information wrong or the designers of the system were really on something special.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who stores or processes time in tenths of a second ?
Milleseconds , microseconds , but tenths of a second ?
I think somebody got their source information wrong or the designers of the system were really on something special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who stores or processes time in tenths of a second?
Milleseconds, microseconds, but tenths of a second?
I think somebody got their source information wrong or the designers of the system were really on something special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933615</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure had *you* been on the team, this never would have happened eh? All the other problems associated with making a missile do what no other missile had done before, what many, many people said could not be done, you would have solved all those problems too eh?</p><p>What's pathetic are Monday Morning Quarterbacks who get winded just getting up for a beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure had * you * been on the team , this never would have happened eh ?
All the other problems associated with making a missile do what no other missile had done before , what many , many people said could not be done , you would have solved all those problems too eh ? What 's pathetic are Monday Morning Quarterbacks who get winded just getting up for a beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure had *you* been on the team, this never would have happened eh?
All the other problems associated with making a missile do what no other missile had done before, what many, many people said could not be done, you would have solved all those problems too eh?What's pathetic are Monday Morning Quarterbacks who get winded just getting up for a beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933865</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the same reaction - stupid news. Old technical problem with old solutions, but someone thought they had a "catchy headline". And conclusion.  It allows for radicalizing - involves missiles, war, deaths, a lot of money, national pride, terrorism, religion, politics, corruption... sex lies and videotape.  No big news, all the same, some engineers screw up, some people do wars and weapons, and some people die. If the same error was in a videogame, or in an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium\_FDIV\_bug" title="wikipedia.org">Intel CPU</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/78113" title="microsoft.com">Excel spreadsheet calculation error</a> [microsoft.com], it would be boring. A thousand monkeys typing, last anyone checked, will not produce any decent code. Or politics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same reaction - stupid news .
Old technical problem with old solutions , but someone thought they had a " catchy headline " .
And conclusion .
It allows for radicalizing - involves missiles , war , deaths , a lot of money , national pride , terrorism , religion , politics , corruption... sex lies and videotape .
No big news , all the same , some engineers screw up , some people do wars and weapons , and some people die .
If the same error was in a videogame , or in an Intel CPU [ wikipedia.org ] or Excel spreadsheet calculation error [ microsoft.com ] , it would be boring .
A thousand monkeys typing , last anyone checked , will not produce any decent code .
Or politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same reaction - stupid news.
Old technical problem with old solutions, but someone thought they had a "catchy headline".
And conclusion.
It allows for radicalizing - involves missiles, war, deaths, a lot of money, national pride, terrorism, religion, politics, corruption... sex lies and videotape.
No big news, all the same, some engineers screw up, some people do wars and weapons, and some people die.
If the same error was in a videogame, or in an Intel CPU [wikipedia.org] or Excel spreadsheet calculation error [microsoft.com], it would be boring.
A thousand monkeys typing, last anyone checked, will not produce any decent code.
Or politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933705</id>
	<title>Re:That is the programmer sucking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3,600,000 ticks, not seconds. You forgot to times by 10 ticks per second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3,600,000 ticks , not seconds .
You forgot to times by 10 ticks per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3,600,000 ticks, not seconds.
You forgot to times by 10 ticks per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1256998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in this specific instance a decimal system would have been ok, but it isn't a general answer. The general answer is "make sure your increments are divisible into your number base", if they had used 1/8th or 1/16ths of a second, or even 3/32 of a second, as their timer increment then they would not have had this problem. There's no reason why 1/10th of a second has any magic properties.</p><p>In general terms, all number bases have other number bases with which they are incompatible. The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately. It's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal's shortcomings (or instinctively compensate for or avoid them) and then blame computers for binary's incompatibility with decimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in this specific instance a decimal system would have been ok , but it is n't a general answer .
The general answer is " make sure your increments are divisible into your number base " , if they had used 1/8th or 1/16ths of a second , or even 3/32 of a second , as their timer increment then they would not have had this problem .
There 's no reason why 1/10th of a second has any magic properties.In general terms , all number bases have other number bases with which they are incompatible .
The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately .
It 's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal 's shortcomings ( or instinctively compensate for or avoid them ) and then blame computers for binary 's incompatibility with decimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in this specific instance a decimal system would have been ok, but it isn't a general answer.
The general answer is "make sure your increments are divisible into your number base", if they had used 1/8th or 1/16ths of a second, or even 3/32 of a second, as their timer increment then they would not have had this problem.
There's no reason why 1/10th of a second has any magic properties.In general terms, all number bases have other number bases with which they are incompatible.
The inability of binary to represent 1/10 accurately is just the same as the inability of decimal to represent 1/3 accurately.
It's only because we use decimal all the time that we overlook decimal's shortcomings (or instinctively compensate for or avoid them) and then blame computers for binary's incompatibility with decimal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935509</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1257013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that Israel hasn't been occupying a square inch of Lebanon and therefore Hizballah doesn't actually have any reason to fire rockets other than "hey let's kill some goddamn Jews" (which is their stated reason for it)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that Israel has n't been occupying a square inch of Lebanon and therefore Hizballah does n't actually have any reason to fire rockets other than " hey let 's kill some goddamn Jews " ( which is their stated reason for it ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that Israel hasn't been occupying a square inch of Lebanon and therefore Hizballah doesn't actually have any reason to fire rockets other than "hey let's kill some goddamn Jews" (which is their stated reason for it)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934335</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go this way, use a library that implements fixed point arithmetic. This way you can always see what actual type the variable represents and - in many languages - it can prevent overflows. For Java, you could for instance use BigDecimal. Only if such a class is too resource intensive you could switch to a normal integer, but in that case make sure that the name of the variable is well chosen and document its use everywhere.</p><p>Can you feel the bugs appearing already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go this way , use a library that implements fixed point arithmetic .
This way you can always see what actual type the variable represents and - in many languages - it can prevent overflows .
For Java , you could for instance use BigDecimal .
Only if such a class is too resource intensive you could switch to a normal integer , but in that case make sure that the name of the variable is well chosen and document its use everywhere.Can you feel the bugs appearing already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go this way, use a library that implements fixed point arithmetic.
This way you can always see what actual type the variable represents and - in many languages - it can prevent overflows.
For Java, you could for instance use BigDecimal.
Only if such a class is too resource intensive you could switch to a normal integer, but in that case make sure that the name of the variable is well chosen and document its use everywhere.Can you feel the bugs appearing already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933959</id>
	<title>24-bit registers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a programmer, I can confirm that these programmers screwed up, but I would bet money on the fact that the management forced them to. There's no way programmers working on physics software would choose a processor limited to 24-bit registers unless that was the only choice they were given, so that decision must have been forced upon them by their bosses. I'm also certain that the decision that it was "good enough" to ship was not made by the programmers. Here's an interesting quote:</p><p>From: <a href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11110" title="corpwatch.org">http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11110</a> [corpwatch.org]<br>"As usual with the Pentagon, cost is no object. But the Patriot is very expensive system and it's getting costlier all the time. Raytheon and Lockheed originally promised to deliver the new Patriot system for $3.7 billion dollars. Now the cost has soared to $7.8 billion. Each Patriot missile unit costs about $170 million. In the first Gulf War, an average of four missiles were launched against a single incoming Scud."</p><p>Even if that's grossly inaccurate, they saved a few bucks per multi-million dollar unit. That's like being penny wise but several million pounds foolish. While I agree it's not that hard to work around the 24-bit limitation, the decision to use such a limited processor was probably a major contributing factor to the schedule slips and cost overruns. Any time a project slips that badly, management will step in and force them to rush it out the door before it's ready. My bet is that the developers knew the problem was there, but they didn't have time to even look at it because they had bigger fish to fry when they were trying to get it out the door.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a programmer , I can confirm that these programmers screwed up , but I would bet money on the fact that the management forced them to .
There 's no way programmers working on physics software would choose a processor limited to 24-bit registers unless that was the only choice they were given , so that decision must have been forced upon them by their bosses .
I 'm also certain that the decision that it was " good enough " to ship was not made by the programmers .
Here 's an interesting quote : From : http : //www.corpwatch.org/article.php ? id = 11110 [ corpwatch.org ] " As usual with the Pentagon , cost is no object .
But the Patriot is very expensive system and it 's getting costlier all the time .
Raytheon and Lockheed originally promised to deliver the new Patriot system for $ 3.7 billion dollars .
Now the cost has soared to $ 7.8 billion .
Each Patriot missile unit costs about $ 170 million .
In the first Gulf War , an average of four missiles were launched against a single incoming Scud .
" Even if that 's grossly inaccurate , they saved a few bucks per multi-million dollar unit .
That 's like being penny wise but several million pounds foolish .
While I agree it 's not that hard to work around the 24-bit limitation , the decision to use such a limited processor was probably a major contributing factor to the schedule slips and cost overruns .
Any time a project slips that badly , management will step in and force them to rush it out the door before it 's ready .
My bet is that the developers knew the problem was there , but they did n't have time to even look at it because they had bigger fish to fry when they were trying to get it out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a programmer, I can confirm that these programmers screwed up, but I would bet money on the fact that the management forced them to.
There's no way programmers working on physics software would choose a processor limited to 24-bit registers unless that was the only choice they were given, so that decision must have been forced upon them by their bosses.
I'm also certain that the decision that it was "good enough" to ship was not made by the programmers.
Here's an interesting quote:From: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11110 [corpwatch.org]"As usual with the Pentagon, cost is no object.
But the Patriot is very expensive system and it's getting costlier all the time.
Raytheon and Lockheed originally promised to deliver the new Patriot system for $3.7 billion dollars.
Now the cost has soared to $7.8 billion.
Each Patriot missile unit costs about $170 million.
In the first Gulf War, an average of four missiles were launched against a single incoming Scud.
"Even if that's grossly inaccurate, they saved a few bucks per multi-million dollar unit.
That's like being penny wise but several million pounds foolish.
While I agree it's not that hard to work around the 24-bit limitation, the decision to use such a limited processor was probably a major contributing factor to the schedule slips and cost overruns.
Any time a project slips that badly, management will step in and force them to rush it out the door before it's ready.
My bet is that the developers knew the problem was there, but they didn't have time to even look at it because they had bigger fish to fry when they were trying to get it out the door.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934085</id>
	<title>Reboot?</title>
	<author>jellyfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1257000420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does restarting the operating system kernel, reinitializing drivers for all the hardware and restarting every running program help?
<br>
I know that's not what you meant, and the operating system in use is probably not windows (I hope, at least). Still, is it that hard to just deal with the problem, instead of starting from nothing and doing a whole lot of unrelated stuff? Reboots should generally not be required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does restarting the operating system kernel , reinitializing drivers for all the hardware and restarting every running program help ?
I know that 's not what you meant , and the operating system in use is probably not windows ( I hope , at least ) .
Still , is it that hard to just deal with the problem , instead of starting from nothing and doing a whole lot of unrelated stuff ?
Reboots should generally not be required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does restarting the operating system kernel, reinitializing drivers for all the hardware and restarting every running program help?
I know that's not what you meant, and the operating system in use is probably not windows (I hope, at least).
Still, is it that hard to just deal with the problem, instead of starting from nothing and doing a whole lot of unrelated stuff?
Reboots should generally not be required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934519</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously flawed reporting</title>
	<author>mybecq</author>
	<datestamp>1257003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 (~1000 m/sec) so a rounding error of 0.05, even without any error accumulation, means you'd be off by 50m in position.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Perhaps the tracking <strong>radar</strong> has a 500m field of view at a range of X km (enough distance to launch a Patriot missile). It doesn't look at the target through a keyhole and just has to be in the general vicinity to detect/confirm the incoming Scud.<br>
<br>
How about if you realized that there are two systems in this story?<br>
1) Radar (0.1 s accuracy)<br>
2) Patriot missile (launched after target confirmation by Radar)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 ( ~ 1000 m/sec ) so a rounding error of 0.05 , even without any error accumulation , means you 'd be off by 50m in position .
Perhaps the tracking radar has a 500m field of view at a range of X km ( enough distance to launch a Patriot missile ) .
It does n't look at the target through a keyhole and just has to be in the general vicinity to detect/confirm the incoming Scud .
How about if you realized that there are two systems in this story ?
1 ) Radar ( 0.1 s accuracy ) 2 ) Patriot missile ( launched after target confirmation by Radar )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 (~1000 m/sec) so a rounding error of 0.05, even without any error accumulation, means you'd be off by 50m in position.
Perhaps the tracking radar has a 500m field of view at a range of X km (enough distance to launch a Patriot missile).
It doesn't look at the target through a keyhole and just has to be in the general vicinity to detect/confirm the incoming Scud.
How about if you realized that there are two systems in this story?
1) Radar (0.1 s accuracy)
2) Patriot missile (launched after target confirmation by Radar)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935965</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullsh*t</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1257017160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And "crappy Linux 2.4" can't be installed on a Patriot Weapons Control Computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And " crappy Linux 2.4 " ca n't be installed on a Patriot Weapons Control Computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "crappy Linux 2.4" can't be installed on a Patriot Weapons Control Computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933691</id>
	<title>Terrible programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is just an example of a terrible programmer(s)...if you ever programmed in assembly before floating point processors, especially on 8 bit machines, you'd be very comfortable extending your number of bits using fixed point math.  Its work, but not hard...terrible people died because of a lazy or uneducated programming team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is just an example of a terrible programmer ( s ) ...if you ever programmed in assembly before floating point processors , especially on 8 bit machines , you 'd be very comfortable extending your number of bits using fixed point math .
Its work , but not hard...terrible people died because of a lazy or uneducated programming team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is just an example of a terrible programmer(s)...if you ever programmed in assembly before floating point processors, especially on 8 bit machines, you'd be very comfortable extending your number of bits using fixed point math.
Its work, but not hard...terrible people died because of a lazy or uneducated programming team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixed point never rounds when operating in the range and precision for which it is designed. In this case they needed a precision of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1, using INT/10 would be 100\% accurate and never give them any rounding errors for this use case.</p><p>So, in other words: You are wrong, and should probably considering using fixed point more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed point never rounds when operating in the range and precision for which it is designed .
In this case they needed a precision of .1 , using INT/10 would be 100 \ % accurate and never give them any rounding errors for this use case.So , in other words : You are wrong , and should probably considering using fixed point more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed point never rounds when operating in the range and precision for which it is designed.
In this case they needed a precision of .1, using INT/10 would be 100\% accurate and never give them any rounding errors for this use case.So, in other words: You are wrong, and should probably considering using fixed point more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935309</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>OldTOP</author>
	<datestamp>1257011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's more to it.  Computers making math processing so cheap that we tend to just throw in the numbers without thinking about what's going to happen.  TFA mentions that in the last paragraph, but unfortunately most of it is misleading sensationalism.
<br> <br>
When you perform subtraction, you generally lose precision.  1234678 - 1234567 = 1.  You start with 7 digits of precision and end up with 1.  Look at it this way:  if the first number was off by one, and error of about one part in a million, your answer would become 0 or 2 instead of 1 -- an error of one part in one.
<br> <br>
When you are designing a control system, you have to understand what precision you need in your final answer, and you have to know whether each step in your algorithm maintains the necessary precision.  If you don't know how to do that, you're not qualified to design the algorithm.  Unfortunately, it's quite possible that neither you nor your bosses know that, so you'll design it anyway.
<br> <br>
Handing people a copy of Excel and saying, "Here, this thing will do math for you -- it multiplies and divides and does a whole lot of statistical functions" is like putting them in an airplane and saying "Here, this thing has controls to make it go up and down, left and right -- go fly it."
<br> <br>
It is true that computer software tends to hide the internals of how arithmetic gets done, and as a result it's particularly easy to get into trouble.  The problems have been understood since before computers were invented.  What's changed is that you used to have to study to find out how to do mathematical computation, and in the process you might learn enough to avoid the problems.  Now the software tends to be distributed without even small print warnings that there are problems and you can get into serious trouble if you don't understand how things work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more to it .
Computers making math processing so cheap that we tend to just throw in the numbers without thinking about what 's going to happen .
TFA mentions that in the last paragraph , but unfortunately most of it is misleading sensationalism .
When you perform subtraction , you generally lose precision .
1234678 - 1234567 = 1 .
You start with 7 digits of precision and end up with 1 .
Look at it this way : if the first number was off by one , and error of about one part in a million , your answer would become 0 or 2 instead of 1 -- an error of one part in one .
When you are designing a control system , you have to understand what precision you need in your final answer , and you have to know whether each step in your algorithm maintains the necessary precision .
If you do n't know how to do that , you 're not qualified to design the algorithm .
Unfortunately , it 's quite possible that neither you nor your bosses know that , so you 'll design it anyway .
Handing people a copy of Excel and saying , " Here , this thing will do math for you -- it multiplies and divides and does a whole lot of statistical functions " is like putting them in an airplane and saying " Here , this thing has controls to make it go up and down , left and right -- go fly it .
" It is true that computer software tends to hide the internals of how arithmetic gets done , and as a result it 's particularly easy to get into trouble .
The problems have been understood since before computers were invented .
What 's changed is that you used to have to study to find out how to do mathematical computation , and in the process you might learn enough to avoid the problems .
Now the software tends to be distributed without even small print warnings that there are problems and you can get into serious trouble if you do n't understand how things work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more to it.
Computers making math processing so cheap that we tend to just throw in the numbers without thinking about what's going to happen.
TFA mentions that in the last paragraph, but unfortunately most of it is misleading sensationalism.
When you perform subtraction, you generally lose precision.
1234678 - 1234567 = 1.
You start with 7 digits of precision and end up with 1.
Look at it this way:  if the first number was off by one, and error of about one part in a million, your answer would become 0 or 2 instead of 1 -- an error of one part in one.
When you are designing a control system, you have to understand what precision you need in your final answer, and you have to know whether each step in your algorithm maintains the necessary precision.
If you don't know how to do that, you're not qualified to design the algorithm.
Unfortunately, it's quite possible that neither you nor your bosses know that, so you'll design it anyway.
Handing people a copy of Excel and saying, "Here, this thing will do math for you -- it multiplies and divides and does a whole lot of statistical functions" is like putting them in an airplane and saying "Here, this thing has controls to make it go up and down, left and right -- go fly it.
"
 
It is true that computer software tends to hide the internals of how arithmetic gets done, and as a result it's particularly easy to get into trouble.
The problems have been understood since before computers were invented.
What's changed is that you used to have to study to find out how to do mathematical computation, and in the process you might learn enough to avoid the problems.
Now the software tends to be distributed without even small print warnings that there are problems and you can get into serious trouble if you don't understand how things work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933783</id>
	<title>Kind of old news isn't it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article contains some interesting examples but all of which have been in programming texts and courses for years. I'm not really sure why it's on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article contains some interesting examples but all of which have been in programming texts and courses for years .
I 'm not really sure why it 's on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article contains some interesting examples but all of which have been in programming texts and courses for years.
I'm not really sure why it's on /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934651</id>
	<title>Attention Span of a Gnat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>99.9\% of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers think "hardware" when they see the word "computer".<br>99.99\% of the general public think "whatever's in that mysterious box" when they see the word computer--and that includes the tubes that hook up to the interwebs.</p><p>It's actually decent science reporting for the 99.99\% of people who don't distinguish between hardware and software, and if one weren't a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader, one's attention span would exceed that of a gnat (not excluding myself here, btw), and one might have read (all the way on page 3):</p><p>"Surprisingly, perhaps &ndash; and with the exception of the Pentium floating point error, which was caused by a hardware glitch &ndash; all of the errors we've mentioned here could have been prevented. In that sense, they can all be thought of as software errors."</p><p>It's actually a pretty good article overall, though since the (presumably UK-based) audience of something called "TechRadar" ought to have more in common with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. than with the general public, the title could have been less inflammatory to those in the know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>99.9 \ % of / .
readers think " hardware " when they see the word " computer " .99.99 \ % of the general public think " whatever 's in that mysterious box " when they see the word computer--and that includes the tubes that hook up to the interwebs.It 's actually decent science reporting for the 99.99 \ % of people who do n't distinguish between hardware and software , and if one were n't a / .
reader , one 's attention span would exceed that of a gnat ( not excluding myself here , btw ) , and one might have read ( all the way on page 3 ) : " Surprisingly , perhaps    and with the exception of the Pentium floating point error , which was caused by a hardware glitch    all of the errors we 've mentioned here could have been prevented .
In that sense , they can all be thought of as software errors .
" It 's actually a pretty good article overall , though since the ( presumably UK-based ) audience of something called " TechRadar " ought to have more in common with / .
than with the general public , the title could have been less inflammatory to those in the know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>99.9\% of /.
readers think "hardware" when they see the word "computer".99.99\% of the general public think "whatever's in that mysterious box" when they see the word computer--and that includes the tubes that hook up to the interwebs.It's actually decent science reporting for the 99.99\% of people who don't distinguish between hardware and software, and if one weren't a /.
reader, one's attention span would exceed that of a gnat (not excluding myself here, btw), and one might have read (all the way on page 3):"Surprisingly, perhaps – and with the exception of the Pentium floating point error, which was caused by a hardware glitch – all of the errors we've mentioned here could have been prevented.
In that sense, they can all be thought of as software errors.
"It's actually a pretty good article overall, though since the (presumably UK-based) audience of something called "TechRadar" ought to have more in common with /.
than with the general public, the title could have been less inflammatory to those in the know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937425</id>
	<title>"Why most programming languages suck at maths"</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1256987520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>LISP, Scheme, Haskell, Mathematica, Maple, and plenty of other languages support arbitrary precision rational numbers as built in types.  This fixes all rounding errors involving rational numbers (including fractions).  If irrational numbers like pi, e, or transcendental functions are necessary, then there will always be inherent error in the representation and the programmer has to know how to do with that error and calculate the expected error of a sequence of operations.  If you want to get fancy, you can use an algebraic language like Mathematica to symbolically solve your equations and maintain perfect accuracy with symbolic representations of irrational and transcendental numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LISP , Scheme , Haskell , Mathematica , Maple , and plenty of other languages support arbitrary precision rational numbers as built in types .
This fixes all rounding errors involving rational numbers ( including fractions ) .
If irrational numbers like pi , e , or transcendental functions are necessary , then there will always be inherent error in the representation and the programmer has to know how to do with that error and calculate the expected error of a sequence of operations .
If you want to get fancy , you can use an algebraic language like Mathematica to symbolically solve your equations and maintain perfect accuracy with symbolic representations of irrational and transcendental numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LISP, Scheme, Haskell, Mathematica, Maple, and plenty of other languages support arbitrary precision rational numbers as built in types.
This fixes all rounding errors involving rational numbers (including fractions).
If irrational numbers like pi, e, or transcendental functions are necessary, then there will always be inherent error in the representation and the programmer has to know how to do with that error and calculate the expected error of a sequence of operations.
If you want to get fancy, you can use an algebraic language like Mathematica to symbolically solve your equations and maintain perfect accuracy with symbolic representations of irrational and transcendental numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934209</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a case in some text book I had to get for univesity a few years ago. According to it, this was in 1991.</p><p>The book is Computer Architecture and Organization [an Integrated Approach] by Miles Murdocca and Vincent Heuring (you can find the case on page 51).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a case in some text book I had to get for univesity a few years ago .
According to it , this was in 1991.The book is Computer Architecture and Organization [ an Integrated Approach ] by Miles Murdocca and Vincent Heuring ( you can find the case on page 51 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a case in some text book I had to get for univesity a few years ago.
According to it, this was in 1991.The book is Computer Architecture and Organization [an Integrated Approach] by Miles Murdocca and Vincent Heuring (you can find the case on page 51).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941889</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still trying to back out why the time at one hour is 3599.9966 instead of 3600.0 (per appendix II of the GAO report, off by 0.0034 sec).  That's about 14 least significant bits bigger than the mantissa LSB for a single precision float holding 3600 as a value.  So OK, per the report time is kept as ticks of 0.1 sec in an integer.  If that's true, then one hour of ticks means that the integer would reach 36000.  If you introduce an error of one floating point LSB during the conversion, that's 35999.9961 cast as a single float, or off by 0.0039 deci-seconds { i.e., in MATLAB:  single(36000) - eps(single(36000)) is 35999.9961 }.  Hmmm, that's 0.0039 which is something close to 0.0034.  But how you could convert deci-seconds to seconds without also shrinking the error to 0.00039, ten times smaller?  Subtracting at the wrong time?  Having an intermediate cast to an int?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still trying to back out why the time at one hour is 3599.9966 instead of 3600.0 ( per appendix II of the GAO report , off by 0.0034 sec ) .
That 's about 14 least significant bits bigger than the mantissa LSB for a single precision float holding 3600 as a value .
So OK , per the report time is kept as ticks of 0.1 sec in an integer .
If that 's true , then one hour of ticks means that the integer would reach 36000 .
If you introduce an error of one floating point LSB during the conversion , that 's 35999.9961 cast as a single float , or off by 0.0039 deci-seconds { i.e. , in MATLAB : single ( 36000 ) - eps ( single ( 36000 ) ) is 35999.9961 } .
Hmmm , that 's 0.0039 which is something close to 0.0034 .
But how you could convert deci-seconds to seconds without also shrinking the error to 0.00039 , ten times smaller ?
Subtracting at the wrong time ?
Having an intermediate cast to an int ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still trying to back out why the time at one hour is 3599.9966 instead of 3600.0 (per appendix II of the GAO report, off by 0.0034 sec).
That's about 14 least significant bits bigger than the mantissa LSB for a single precision float holding 3600 as a value.
So OK, per the report time is kept as ticks of 0.1 sec in an integer.
If that's true, then one hour of ticks means that the integer would reach 36000.
If you introduce an error of one floating point LSB during the conversion, that's 35999.9961 cast as a single float, or off by 0.0039 deci-seconds { i.e., in MATLAB:  single(36000) - eps(single(36000)) is 35999.9961 }.
Hmmm, that's 0.0039 which is something close to 0.0034.
But how you could convert deci-seconds to seconds without also shrinking the error to 0.00039, ten times smaller?
Subtracting at the wrong time?
Having an intermediate cast to an int?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941613</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.  The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).  Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.</p></div><p>It really depends on how you define success.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Linebacker\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Operation Linebacker II</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs ( after the software upgrades ) .
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.It really depends on how you define success.Operation Linebacker II [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
The Patriot has a quite good record against SCUDs (after the software upgrades).
Much better than the Soviet SA-2s did against B-52 raids in Vietnam.It really depends on how you define success.Operation Linebacker II [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934343</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>Florian Weimer</author>
	<datestamp>1257002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Use fixed point numbers? You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!</i></p><p>As Excel uses floating point, so the "never" part doesn't appear to be complete true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use fixed point numbers ?
You know , in financial apps , you never store things as floating points , use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead ! As Excel uses floating point , so the " never " part does n't appear to be complete true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use fixed point numbers?
You know, in financial apps, you never store things as floating points, use cents or 1/1000th dollars instead!As Excel uses floating point, so the "never" part doesn't appear to be complete true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935731</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1257015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The discussion in itself is off-topic. In the real world no continuous magnitude can be exactly measured nor represented. There is nothing as "exactly 0.1 seconds". Any physical quantity is an approximation (like the numbers in digital computers.) The problem was in the system design that apparently (and incredibly) didn't account for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The discussion in itself is off-topic .
In the real world no continuous magnitude can be exactly measured nor represented .
There is nothing as " exactly 0.1 seconds " .
Any physical quantity is an approximation ( like the numbers in digital computers .
) The problem was in the system design that apparently ( and incredibly ) did n't account for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The discussion in itself is off-topic.
In the real world no continuous magnitude can be exactly measured nor represented.
There is nothing as "exactly 0.1 seconds".
Any physical quantity is an approximation (like the numbers in digital computers.
) The problem was in the system design that apparently (and incredibly) didn't account for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935307</id>
	<title>so, the obvious(?) question</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1257011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the article describes why programers suck at math.</p><p>Instead of using seconds as a time unite and introducing what amounts to rounding errors, systems like these should run straight off the clock ticks. There's no reason for a computer to be using seconds internally in the first place - just convert to them when human-readable output is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the article describes why programers suck at math.Instead of using seconds as a time unite and introducing what amounts to rounding errors , systems like these should run straight off the clock ticks .
There 's no reason for a computer to be using seconds internally in the first place - just convert to them when human-readable output is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the article describes why programers suck at math.Instead of using seconds as a time unite and introducing what amounts to rounding errors, systems like these should run straight off the clock ticks.
There's no reason for a computer to be using seconds internally in the first place - just convert to them when human-readable output is required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933977</id>
	<title>Re:And this is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>++</p><p>++</p><p>and more ++, to use a tired idiom.</p><p>And as a part of that education, there needs to be a few assignments that force people to calculate out, by hand preferably, in thirds and in sevenths.  Hopefully something interesting enough to not be dismissed out of hand as a make-work assignment.  Something that gives actual "this is why it fails because I've seen it fail with my own eyes" experience.</p><p>And then hammer the point home, that, to computers, tenths is like thirds and sevenths is to us.</p><p>And follow that up with ideas on how to handle accumulations.  For example, storing quanities in units of 1/10 (or 1/100 if money) as a integer, instead of in floating-point.  Or, if there's a choice in how a clock is designed, use 1/16ths of a second.  Or, increment the floating-point each time and every 10 invocations increment an integer and assign that integer to the floating point.  Or any of a myriad of other techniques.  And point out that these techniques work for any fixed denominator, not just decimals.</p><p>No need for a full-blown numerical analysis course.  Just a good dose of awareness of the issue, ideally coupled with assignments that visits the issue from time to time.  I've always been a big fan of assigning floating-point binary-decimal conversion as one of the programming projects.  Almost no one gets it right the first time.  But don't grade that one, collect the results, and discuss in class and assign a revision for next week, and this one will count.  It works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ + + + and more + + , to use a tired idiom.And as a part of that education , there needs to be a few assignments that force people to calculate out , by hand preferably , in thirds and in sevenths .
Hopefully something interesting enough to not be dismissed out of hand as a make-work assignment .
Something that gives actual " this is why it fails because I 've seen it fail with my own eyes " experience.And then hammer the point home , that , to computers , tenths is like thirds and sevenths is to us.And follow that up with ideas on how to handle accumulations .
For example , storing quanities in units of 1/10 ( or 1/100 if money ) as a integer , instead of in floating-point .
Or , if there 's a choice in how a clock is designed , use 1/16ths of a second .
Or , increment the floating-point each time and every 10 invocations increment an integer and assign that integer to the floating point .
Or any of a myriad of other techniques .
And point out that these techniques work for any fixed denominator , not just decimals.No need for a full-blown numerical analysis course .
Just a good dose of awareness of the issue , ideally coupled with assignments that visits the issue from time to time .
I 've always been a big fan of assigning floating-point binary-decimal conversion as one of the programming projects .
Almost no one gets it right the first time .
But do n't grade that one , collect the results , and discuss in class and assign a revision for next week , and this one will count .
It works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>++++and more ++, to use a tired idiom.And as a part of that education, there needs to be a few assignments that force people to calculate out, by hand preferably, in thirds and in sevenths.
Hopefully something interesting enough to not be dismissed out of hand as a make-work assignment.
Something that gives actual "this is why it fails because I've seen it fail with my own eyes" experience.And then hammer the point home, that, to computers, tenths is like thirds and sevenths is to us.And follow that up with ideas on how to handle accumulations.
For example, storing quanities in units of 1/10 (or 1/100 if money) as a integer, instead of in floating-point.
Or, if there's a choice in how a clock is designed, use 1/16ths of a second.
Or, increment the floating-point each time and every 10 invocations increment an integer and assign that integer to the floating point.
Or any of a myriad of other techniques.
And point out that these techniques work for any fixed denominator, not just decimals.No need for a full-blown numerical analysis course.
Just a good dose of awareness of the issue, ideally coupled with assignments that visits the issue from time to time.
I've always been a big fan of assigning floating-point binary-decimal conversion as one of the programming projects.
Almost no one gets it right the first time.
But don't grade that one, collect the results, and discuss in class and assign a revision for next week, and this one will count.
It works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</id>
	<title>Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use decimal floating point or simple swich to fixed point. Fixed point not used as often as it should, and many developers don't know how difficult ordinary floiting point really is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use decimal floating point or simple swich to fixed point .
Fixed point not used as often as it should , and many developers do n't know how difficult ordinary floiting point really is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use decimal floating point or simple swich to fixed point.
Fixed point not used as often as it should, and many developers don't know how difficult ordinary floiting point really is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893</id>
	<title>Seriously flawed reporting</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1256998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.</p><p>A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 (~1000 m/sec) so a rounding error of 0.05, even without any error accumulation, means you'd be off by 50m in position.</p><p>Who knows what the real story is vs the garbage that was reported, but even if there was a cumulative error that's the fault of the programmer rather than a lack of a computers ability to do math. You do your error analysis and use whatever accuracy needed to keep the errors in a tolerable range.</p><p>The part about the system running for 100 hours was pure gibberish. Yes, we can all divide that by 0.1 sec, but what on earth does that have to do with a real-time tracking system tracking a target is acquired a few minutes ago?!</p><p>A better title for the story rather than "computers can't do math" would be "we can't do tech reporting".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 ( ~ 1000 m/sec ) so a rounding error of 0.05 , even without any error accumulation , means you 'd be off by 50m in position.Who knows what the real story is vs the garbage that was reported , but even if there was a cumulative error that 's the fault of the programmer rather than a lack of a computers ability to do math .
You do your error analysis and use whatever accuracy needed to keep the errors in a tolerable range.The part about the system running for 100 hours was pure gibberish .
Yes , we can all divide that by 0.1 sec , but what on earth does that have to do with a real-time tracking system tracking a target is acquired a few minutes ago ?
! A better title for the story rather than " computers ca n't do math " would be " we ca n't do tech reporting " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way a real-time missile tracking system is going to be dealing with time at an accuracy of 0.1 sec.A Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3 (~1000 m/sec) so a rounding error of 0.05, even without any error accumulation, means you'd be off by 50m in position.Who knows what the real story is vs the garbage that was reported, but even if there was a cumulative error that's the fault of the programmer rather than a lack of a computers ability to do math.
You do your error analysis and use whatever accuracy needed to keep the errors in a tolerable range.The part about the system running for 100 hours was pure gibberish.
Yes, we can all divide that by 0.1 sec, but what on earth does that have to do with a real-time tracking system tracking a target is acquired a few minutes ago?
!A better title for the story rather than "computers can't do math" would be "we can't do tech reporting".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934181</id>
	<title>"The radar looked in the wrong place" (SIC)</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1257001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we're on the topic of computers performing calculations and misguided notions, how about we rid ourselves of these unnecessary anthropomorphisms which lead to the idea that a computer is even "doing math" with our number system, or that the radar is "looking" anywhere at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're on the topic of computers performing calculations and misguided notions , how about we rid ourselves of these unnecessary anthropomorphisms which lead to the idea that a computer is even " doing math " with our number system , or that the radar is " looking " anywhere at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're on the topic of computers performing calculations and misguided notions, how about we rid ourselves of these unnecessary anthropomorphisms which lead to the idea that a computer is even "doing math" with our number system, or that the radar is "looking" anywhere at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935053</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, now go and read the article. The Patriot bug was a problem with fixed point maths. The Ariane bug was integer overflow. The Intel FPU bug was caused by a production error with <b>nothing</b> to do with the arithmetic actually being performed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , now go and read the article .
The Patriot bug was a problem with fixed point maths .
The Ariane bug was integer overflow .
The Intel FPU bug was caused by a production error with nothing to do with the arithmetic actually being performed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, now go and read the article.
The Patriot bug was a problem with fixed point maths.
The Ariane bug was integer overflow.
The Intel FPU bug was caused by a production error with nothing to do with the arithmetic actually being performed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933825</id>
	<title>Error in the author's math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Quote: total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m..............


This would mean the SCUD would be traveling at almost 71 million miles per hour! I don't think so............</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : total error of 0.3433 seconds , during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m............. . This would mean the SCUD would be traveling at almost 71 million miles per hour !
I do n't think so........... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Quote: total error of 0.3433 seconds, during which time the Scud missile would cover 687m..............


This would mean the SCUD would be traveling at almost 71 million miles per hour!
I don't think so............
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934775</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>lq\_x\_pl</author>
	<datestamp>1257006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rockets and Mortars?  Meet the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">MTHEL</a> [youtube.com].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rockets and Mortars ?
Meet the MTHEL [ youtube.com ] .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rockets and Mortars?
Meet the MTHEL [youtube.com].
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934523</id>
	<title>read Goldberg's paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't know about neither how integer math is supposed to be done nor about floating-point maths.  Read Goldberd's paper "What every computer scientist should know about floating-point numbers".</p><p>People that *think* they know about that subject are probably the worst offenders: do you know what it takes to writes correctly the following method (camel case, long method name, just to get to the point):</p><p>areEqualsOrAlmostEquals(float a, float b, float maxAbsOrRelError) {...}</p><p>you give a float which specify the maximum absolute or relative error and your method simply returns true or false.</p><p>Do you *really* know what it takes to write such a method?   Hint: you probably don't and I can write test cases making your solution fail.</p><p>Goldberg's paper is pure gold<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I have it since years, it's 80 pages long and it's a bible on the subject.</p><p>Most people don't understand integer math nor floating-point math, it's a fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't know about neither how integer math is supposed to be done nor about floating-point maths .
Read Goldberd 's paper " What every computer scientist should know about floating-point numbers " .People that * think * they know about that subject are probably the worst offenders : do you know what it takes to writes correctly the following method ( camel case , long method name , just to get to the point ) : areEqualsOrAlmostEquals ( float a , float b , float maxAbsOrRelError ) { ... } you give a float which specify the maximum absolute or relative error and your method simply returns true or false.Do you * really * know what it takes to write such a method ?
Hint : you probably do n't and I can write test cases making your solution fail.Goldberg 's paper is pure gold ; ) I have it since years , it 's 80 pages long and it 's a bible on the subject.Most people do n't understand integer math nor floating-point math , it 's a fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't know about neither how integer math is supposed to be done nor about floating-point maths.
Read Goldberd's paper "What every computer scientist should know about floating-point numbers".People that *think* they know about that subject are probably the worst offenders: do you know what it takes to writes correctly the following method (camel case, long method name, just to get to the point):areEqualsOrAlmostEquals(float a, float b, float maxAbsOrRelError) {...}you give a float which specify the maximum absolute or relative error and your method simply returns true or false.Do you *really* know what it takes to write such a method?
Hint: you probably don't and I can write test cases making your solution fail.Goldberg's paper is pure gold ;)I have it since years, it's 80 pages long and it's a bible on the subject.Most people don't understand integer math nor floating-point math, it's a fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936925</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1256982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is also the problem that a downed missile presents. What is a "downed missile" ? Well it's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that's about to crash into the ground. So far so good.</p><p>So what is "the ground" in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ? Well it's the center of the city that's controlled by the terrorists. It's their human shields. Markets, schools, you name it. So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as "Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten". That is, by the way, the literal truth, even if the rather important detail of a rocket's presence above said kindergarten is left out. In the deployed missile intercept installations "the ground" is chosen to be something else, like the ocean surface.</p></div><p>Insightful? He is actually claiming that an anti-rocket-missile started by the Israelis would intercept the rocket within seconds  after the start, instead of a few seconds before the impact. </p><p>The real reason his beloved Iron Dome is useless <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=956933&amp;contrassID=0&amp;subContrassID=0" title="haaretz.com" rel="nofollow">is the very short flight time of the rockets</a> [haaretz.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also the problem that a downed missile presents .
What is a " downed missile " ?
Well it 's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that 's about to crash into the ground .
So far so good.So what is " the ground " in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ?
Well it 's the center of the city that 's controlled by the terrorists .
It 's their human shields .
Markets , schools , you name it .
So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as " Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten " .
That is , by the way , the literal truth , even if the rather important detail of a rocket 's presence above said kindergarten is left out .
In the deployed missile intercept installations " the ground " is chosen to be something else , like the ocean surface.Insightful ?
He is actually claiming that an anti-rocket-missile started by the Israelis would intercept the rocket within seconds after the start , instead of a few seconds before the impact .
The real reason his beloved Iron Dome is useless is the very short flight time of the rockets [ haaretz.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also the problem that a downed missile presents.
What is a "downed missile" ?
Well it's a large collection of very-high speed pieces of metal that have been heated up by a large explosion that's about to crash into the ground.
So far so good.So what is "the ground" in the case of a hizbullah or hamas missile launch ?
Well it's the center of the city that's controlled by the terrorists.
It's their human shields.
Markets, schools, you name it.
So a successfull missile intercept is reported in the press as "Israel fires a rocket into a palestinian kindergarten".
That is, by the way, the literal truth, even if the rather important detail of a rocket's presence above said kindergarten is left out.
In the deployed missile intercept installations "the ground" is chosen to be something else, like the ocean surface.Insightful?
He is actually claiming that an anti-rocket-missile started by the Israelis would intercept the rocket within seconds  after the start, instead of a few seconds before the impact.
The real reason his beloved Iron Dome is useless is the very short flight time of the rockets [haaretz.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934191</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>sulimma</author>
	<datestamp>1257001320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the problem was not that 0.1s could not be represented. After all, the article states that there were 0.1s ticks and they likely counted ticks as integers. No problem there.<br>However, I gues that 0.1s was no integer multiple of the system clock.  If for example the tick should occur after 6,666,666.67 clock cycles, the system likely emitted a tick after 6,666,667 clock cycles. Such a system would accumulate 3.3 clock cycles of error each second.</p><p>The solution is to keep an explicit error term: Use Bresenhams line drawing algorithm. Imagine drawing a line where X are the clock cycles and Y are the ticks. Minimum error integer algorithms are known for decades for this problem and Bresenham is a very elegant one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the problem was not that 0.1s could not be represented .
After all , the article states that there were 0.1s ticks and they likely counted ticks as integers .
No problem there.However , I gues that 0.1s was no integer multiple of the system clock .
If for example the tick should occur after 6,666,666.67 clock cycles , the system likely emitted a tick after 6,666,667 clock cycles .
Such a system would accumulate 3.3 clock cycles of error each second.The solution is to keep an explicit error term : Use Bresenhams line drawing algorithm .
Imagine drawing a line where X are the clock cycles and Y are the ticks .
Minimum error integer algorithms are known for decades for this problem and Bresenham is a very elegant one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the problem was not that 0.1s could not be represented.
After all, the article states that there were 0.1s ticks and they likely counted ticks as integers.
No problem there.However, I gues that 0.1s was no integer multiple of the system clock.
If for example the tick should occur after 6,666,666.67 clock cycles, the system likely emitted a tick after 6,666,667 clock cycles.
Such a system would accumulate 3.3 clock cycles of error each second.The solution is to keep an explicit error term: Use Bresenhams line drawing algorithm.
Imagine drawing a line where X are the clock cycles and Y are the ticks.
Minimum error integer algorithms are known for decades for this problem and Bresenham is a very elegant one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934547</id>
	<title>Implementing meaningful timestamps is not trivial!</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1257003960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who thinks that measuring time is simply a matter of using accurate floating point values should have a closer look at the definition of time</p><ul><li>There is the universal time (UT) where there is noon when the average sun crosses the zenit in Greenwich.</li><li>There is the ephemeridal time (ET) which is a constant time measure which was defined last century. Due to the earth's rotation slowing down ET-UT is more than one minute these days.</li><li>There is UTC which is a constant time measure which is aligned with UT (running at the speed of ET). Once UTC-UT reaches 0.9 seconds a switch-second is introduced (happens about twice a year).</li><li>Then there is time zones and all the summer time / winter time nonsense</li><li>A year has more than 2**34 milliseconds. The Julian calendar starts at 4713 BC. In order to save digits time-signal services use the Modified Julian Date which starts somewhere in 1858.</li></ul><p>And depending on the problem you are working on you may have to take into account relativistic effects caused by the gravitational potential of the earth and the sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks that measuring time is simply a matter of using accurate floating point values should have a closer look at the definition of timeThere is the universal time ( UT ) where there is noon when the average sun crosses the zenit in Greenwich.There is the ephemeridal time ( ET ) which is a constant time measure which was defined last century .
Due to the earth 's rotation slowing down ET-UT is more than one minute these days.There is UTC which is a constant time measure which is aligned with UT ( running at the speed of ET ) .
Once UTC-UT reaches 0.9 seconds a switch-second is introduced ( happens about twice a year ) .Then there is time zones and all the summer time / winter time nonsenseA year has more than 2 * * 34 milliseconds .
The Julian calendar starts at 4713 BC .
In order to save digits time-signal services use the Modified Julian Date which starts somewhere in 1858.And depending on the problem you are working on you may have to take into account relativistic effects caused by the gravitational potential of the earth and the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks that measuring time is simply a matter of using accurate floating point values should have a closer look at the definition of timeThere is the universal time (UT) where there is noon when the average sun crosses the zenit in Greenwich.There is the ephemeridal time (ET) which is a constant time measure which was defined last century.
Due to the earth's rotation slowing down ET-UT is more than one minute these days.There is UTC which is a constant time measure which is aligned with UT (running at the speed of ET).
Once UTC-UT reaches 0.9 seconds a switch-second is introduced (happens about twice a year).Then there is time zones and all the summer time / winter time nonsenseA year has more than 2**34 milliseconds.
The Julian calendar starts at 4713 BC.
In order to save digits time-signal services use the Modified Julian Date which starts somewhere in 1858.And depending on the problem you are working on you may have to take into account relativistic effects caused by the gravitational potential of the earth and the sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935393</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, fixed point multiplication/division is actually SLOWER on today's hardware than floating point. You need to do the actual multiplication with extra precision and then shift afterward. There is one reason to use it and one reason only: guaranteed 100\% accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , fixed point multiplication/division is actually SLOWER on today 's hardware than floating point .
You need to do the actual multiplication with extra precision and then shift afterward .
There is one reason to use it and one reason only : guaranteed 100 \ % accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, fixed point multiplication/division is actually SLOWER on today's hardware than floating point.
You need to do the actual multiplication with extra precision and then shift afterward.
There is one reason to use it and one reason only: guaranteed 100\% accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933779</id>
	<title>And this is why...</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1256997420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is why it is a good idea to take a Numerical Analysis course or an Assembly course that lets you play with floating-point arithmetic as part of your CS electives. As much as I'd like to blame today's Java/.NET-oriented CS curricula (which seem to be fashionable now in many universities), it's been quite a while that many universities barely pay any attention (if any) to the details of floating point arithmetic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why it is a good idea to take a Numerical Analysis course or an Assembly course that lets you play with floating-point arithmetic as part of your CS electives .
As much as I 'd like to blame today 's Java/.NET-oriented CS curricula ( which seem to be fashionable now in many universities ) , it 's been quite a while that many universities barely pay any attention ( if any ) to the details of floating point arithmetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why it is a good idea to take a Numerical Analysis course or an Assembly course that lets you play with floating-point arithmetic as part of your CS electives.
As much as I'd like to blame today's Java/.NET-oriented CS curricula (which seem to be fashionable now in many universities), it's been quite a while that many universities barely pay any attention (if any) to the details of floating point arithmetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939395</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of old news isn't it?</title>
	<author>grouchomarxist</author>
	<datestamp>1257010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone has read those texts or taken those courses. Many people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are self-taught. It would probably be good for them to learn and everyone else to get reminded of the issues involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone has read those texts or taken those courses .
Many people on / .
are self-taught .
It would probably be good for them to learn and everyone else to get reminded of the issues involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone has read those texts or taken those courses.
Many people on /.
are self-taught.
It would probably be good for them to learn and everyone else to get reminded of the issues involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938519</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they *can* be incredibly useful, and without an adequate substitute.</p><p>A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect.</p></div><p>I hope you're trolling. Computer systems are <b>not</b> as close as you can get to perfect. Computers are fragile, immensely complicated things. Sure digital systems can be more precise or faster than analog ones. But in practice computer systems are not the most reliable. What other systems produce errors due to cosmic rays? Would you place your life in the hands of a computer system that had to have no software flaws in any of its components or suffer a hardware malfunction while you were on its watch? "Stories like this" may or may not be fud, but they also bring up case after case where your beloved computers were not as reliable as you would think they are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they * can * be incredibly useful , and without an adequate substitute.A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect.I hope you 're trolling .
Computer systems are not as close as you can get to perfect .
Computers are fragile , immensely complicated things .
Sure digital systems can be more precise or faster than analog ones .
But in practice computer systems are not the most reliable .
What other systems produce errors due to cosmic rays ?
Would you place your life in the hands of a computer system that had to have no software flaws in any of its components or suffer a hardware malfunction while you were on its watch ?
" Stories like this " may or may not be fud , but they also bring up case after case where your beloved computers were not as reliable as you would think they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they *can* be incredibly useful, and without an adequate substitute.A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect.I hope you're trolling.
Computer systems are not as close as you can get to perfect.
Computers are fragile, immensely complicated things.
Sure digital systems can be more precise or faster than analog ones.
But in practice computer systems are not the most reliable.
What other systems produce errors due to cosmic rays?
Would you place your life in the hands of a computer system that had to have no software flaws in any of its components or suffer a hardware malfunction while you were on its watch?
"Stories like this" may or may not be fud, but they also bring up case after case where your beloved computers were not as reliable as you would think they are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934147</id>
	<title>Don't blame the computer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... blame the programmer who tried to stuff 0.1 into binary, and then used the resulting erroneous binary number as if it were correct.</p><p>.</p><p>In this case, the computer didn't suck at math; the programmer sucked at programming, and should have been kept far away from computers controlling armament.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... blame the programmer who tried to stuff 0.1 into binary , and then used the resulting erroneous binary number as if it were correct..In this case , the computer did n't suck at math ; the programmer sucked at programming , and should have been kept far away from computers controlling armament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... blame the programmer who tried to stuff 0.1 into binary, and then used the resulting erroneous binary number as if it were correct..In this case, the computer didn't suck at math; the programmer sucked at programming, and should have been kept far away from computers controlling armament.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933697</id>
	<title>Re:That is the programmer sucking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 10 ticks per second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 10 ticks per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 10 ticks per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934407</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257002880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should of course have used Swiss build computers instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should of course have used Swiss build computers instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should of course have used Swiss build computers instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934657</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone posted the actual GAO report on this, which makes a bit more sense than the gibberish TechRadar arcticle.</p><p><a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm" title="fas.org">http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm</a> [fas.org]</p><p>The way the system is sure it's tracking the target it was given is by predicting where it should be seen next based on speed and diretion, and then only looking for it in a window ("range gate") around that predicted position. The window is a point in space-time and therefore has time coordinates as well as space coordinates, and the problem was that the Patriot system apparently used absolute time since power on to specify the time coordinate, hence the error accumulation. The problem could have been avoided simply by using a time coordinate relative to the last tracked postion rather than an absolute one.</p><p>The GAO report also blames the 24 bit registers of the 1970's era hardware as limiting accuracy which is just garbage. A good excuse to a politician perhaps, but there was nothing stopping them from using a 64 bit, or whatever, math library if that would have helped.</p><p>Of course the Patriot was being used outside of it's original requirements spec when being used to target SCUDs, so it seems someone really screwed up in not reviewing the design beforehand and determining it's limitations (and fixing them) rather than finding out after the fact when 28 people are dead as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone posted the actual GAO report on this , which makes a bit more sense than the gibberish TechRadar arcticle.http : //www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm [ fas.org ] The way the system is sure it 's tracking the target it was given is by predicting where it should be seen next based on speed and diretion , and then only looking for it in a window ( " range gate " ) around that predicted position .
The window is a point in space-time and therefore has time coordinates as well as space coordinates , and the problem was that the Patriot system apparently used absolute time since power on to specify the time coordinate , hence the error accumulation .
The problem could have been avoided simply by using a time coordinate relative to the last tracked postion rather than an absolute one.The GAO report also blames the 24 bit registers of the 1970 's era hardware as limiting accuracy which is just garbage .
A good excuse to a politician perhaps , but there was nothing stopping them from using a 64 bit , or whatever , math library if that would have helped.Of course the Patriot was being used outside of it 's original requirements spec when being used to target SCUDs , so it seems someone really screwed up in not reviewing the design beforehand and determining it 's limitations ( and fixing them ) rather than finding out after the fact when 28 people are dead as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone posted the actual GAO report on this, which makes a bit more sense than the gibberish TechRadar arcticle.http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm [fas.org]The way the system is sure it's tracking the target it was given is by predicting where it should be seen next based on speed and diretion, and then only looking for it in a window ("range gate") around that predicted position.
The window is a point in space-time and therefore has time coordinates as well as space coordinates, and the problem was that the Patriot system apparently used absolute time since power on to specify the time coordinate, hence the error accumulation.
The problem could have been avoided simply by using a time coordinate relative to the last tracked postion rather than an absolute one.The GAO report also blames the 24 bit registers of the 1970's era hardware as limiting accuracy which is just garbage.
A good excuse to a politician perhaps, but there was nothing stopping them from using a 64 bit, or whatever, math library if that would have helped.Of course the Patriot was being used outside of it's original requirements spec when being used to target SCUDs, so it seems someone really screwed up in not reviewing the design beforehand and determining it's limitations (and fixing them) rather than finding out after the fact when 28 people are dead as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937149</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong; you said so yourself "for which it is designed". That's why you have to check for range overflows in critical software. Also his point is that there are other points of failure other than simple arithmetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong ; you said so yourself " for which it is designed " .
That 's why you have to check for range overflows in critical software .
Also his point is that there are other points of failure other than simple arithmetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong; you said so yourself "for which it is designed".
That's why you have to check for range overflows in critical software.
Also his point is that there are other points of failure other than simple arithmetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935621</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Pikkebaas</author>
	<datestamp>1257014220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hezbollah are Palestinian?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hezbollah are Palestinian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hezbollah are Palestinian?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933613</id>
	<title>Practical Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem seems to be right out of the textbook for "Practical Analysis" (not sure if this is the correct translation for the german "Praktische Analysis"). This was a nandatory course for every computer science degree during my university time (20 years ago). Don't know if this is still the case. It was an eye opener to see how correct formulas and a perfectly working computer could yield absurd results. Several times i was asked for help by people claiming their Excel was broken due to such mistakes.<br>
<br>
CU, Martin</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem seems to be right out of the textbook for " Practical Analysis " ( not sure if this is the correct translation for the german " Praktische Analysis " ) .
This was a nandatory course for every computer science degree during my university time ( 20 years ago ) .
Do n't know if this is still the case .
It was an eye opener to see how correct formulas and a perfectly working computer could yield absurd results .
Several times i was asked for help by people claiming their Excel was broken due to such mistakes .
CU , Martin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem seems to be right out of the textbook for "Practical Analysis" (not sure if this is the correct translation for the german "Praktische Analysis").
This was a nandatory course for every computer science degree during my university time (20 years ago).
Don't know if this is still the case.
It was an eye opener to see how correct formulas and a perfectly working computer could yield absurd results.
Several times i was asked for help by people claiming their Excel was broken due to such mistakes.
CU, Martin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933593</id>
	<title>Old news on an ancient design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) This problem was covered in Risks Digest years ago.<br>2) Design and production phase was completed in 1980.</p><p>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/10.82.html#subj1</p><p>is a good start for "Why the hell are we using this weapons system the way we are?"</p><p>As memory serves the fix is to restart the system perodically.<br>As memory also serves that's been part of the operating procedure for a very long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This problem was covered in Risks Digest years ago.2 ) Design and production phase was completed in 1980.http : //catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/10.82.html # subj1is a good start for " Why the hell are we using this weapons system the way we are ?
" As memory serves the fix is to restart the system perodically.As memory also serves that 's been part of the operating procedure for a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This problem was covered in Risks Digest years ago.2) Design and production phase was completed in 1980.http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/10.82.html#subj1is a good start for "Why the hell are we using this weapons system the way we are?
"As memory serves the fix is to restart the system perodically.As memory also serves that's been part of the operating procedure for a very long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936097</id>
	<title>Solution Unsatisfactory</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1257018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put a milspec GPS in every major component to get the atomic-clock-accurate time before critical functions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put a milspec GPS in every major component to get the atomic-clock-accurate time before critical functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put a milspec GPS in every major component to get the atomic-clock-accurate time before critical functions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933991</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1256999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic:</p><p>&gt;The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short. But over the course of several thousand revolutions, those mm add up to a massive error, which causes the pistons to strike metal. Thus the car was a write-off.</p><p>A timing belt has TEETH, which make it a precise digital computer, dividing the revolution of the crankshaft by the right integer in order to drive the camshaft.</p><p>The exact length of the belt is irrelevant-- any extra length is taken up by the tension adjuster pulley's position.</p><p>Nothing to do with floating-point ops at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell if you 're being serious or sarcastic : &gt; The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short .
But over the course of several thousand revolutions , those mm add up to a massive error , which causes the pistons to strike metal .
Thus the car was a write-off.A timing belt has TEETH , which make it a precise digital computer , dividing the revolution of the crankshaft by the right integer in order to drive the camshaft.The exact length of the belt is irrelevant-- any extra length is taken up by the tension adjuster pulley 's position.Nothing to do with floating-point ops at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic:&gt;The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short.
But over the course of several thousand revolutions, those mm add up to a massive error, which causes the pistons to strike metal.
Thus the car was a write-off.A timing belt has TEETH, which make it a precise digital computer, dividing the revolution of the crankshaft by the right integer in order to drive the camshaft.The exact length of the belt is irrelevant-- any extra length is taken up by the tension adjuster pulley's position.Nothing to do with floating-point ops at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935409</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are great... when used correctly.</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1257012240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, both 2.0 and 1.0 have exact representations in binary floating point, so there is really no reason why you should see an error.</p><p>2.1 / 0.7, however (both lacking exact representations), is likely to produce a significant error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , both 2.0 and 1.0 have exact representations in binary floating point , so there is really no reason why you should see an error.2.1 / 0.7 , however ( both lacking exact representations ) , is likely to produce a significant error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, both 2.0 and 1.0 have exact representations in binary floating point, so there is really no reason why you should see an error.2.1 / 0.7, however (both lacking exact representations), is likely to produce a significant error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937977</id>
	<title>Is this about the incident in the first Iraq war?</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1256994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that the design decisions which lead to this were poorly made, this error was common knowledge.</p><p>The Patriot system \_must\_ be restarted every X days, exactly due to this bug. This is documented and everything.</p><p>While the initial error was with the people who created the Patriot system, the soldiers who were assigned to the system were the ones who made sure that a documented bug with a known-good work-around became a loss of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that the design decisions which lead to this were poorly made , this error was common knowledge.The Patriot system \ _must \ _ be restarted every X days , exactly due to this bug .
This is documented and everything.While the initial error was with the people who created the Patriot system , the soldiers who were assigned to the system were the ones who made sure that a documented bug with a known-good work-around became a loss of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that the design decisions which lead to this were poorly made, this error was common knowledge.The Patriot system \_must\_ be restarted every X days, exactly due to this bug.
This is documented and everything.While the initial error was with the people who created the Patriot system, the soldiers who were assigned to the system were the ones who made sure that a documented bug with a known-good work-around became a loss of life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fixed point? What would that accomplish? Rounding creep happens, irregardless of data type, every time it rounds the last digit, fixed or float. <br>

Fixed point is never a good idea, bad idea or not, it does speed up things on limited hardware. A missile isn't "budget" though. <br>

Yes floats are difficult, every operation moves it farther from original guess, it's just guessing the last digit. Only solutions are to not do fractional math at all, or to reload and adjust values periodically. Time keeping however is a subject that been already well researched. Any embedded platform I've seen has at least a dozen app-notes and a dozen different ways to keep accurate time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed point ?
What would that accomplish ?
Rounding creep happens , irregardless of data type , every time it rounds the last digit , fixed or float .
Fixed point is never a good idea , bad idea or not , it does speed up things on limited hardware .
A missile is n't " budget " though .
Yes floats are difficult , every operation moves it farther from original guess , it 's just guessing the last digit .
Only solutions are to not do fractional math at all , or to reload and adjust values periodically .
Time keeping however is a subject that been already well researched .
Any embedded platform I 've seen has at least a dozen app-notes and a dozen different ways to keep accurate time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed point?
What would that accomplish?
Rounding creep happens, irregardless of data type, every time it rounds the last digit, fixed or float.
Fixed point is never a good idea, bad idea or not, it does speed up things on limited hardware.
A missile isn't "budget" though.
Yes floats are difficult, every operation moves it farther from original guess, it's just guessing the last digit.
Only solutions are to not do fractional math at all, or to reload and adjust values periodically.
Time keeping however is a subject that been already well researched.
Any embedded platform I've seen has at least a dozen app-notes and a dozen different ways to keep accurate time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934759</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has little to do with the decimal vs. binary base. If there is a fixed granularity, you don't need floating point. Storing the value as an integer representing tenths of a second (rather than a float representing seconds) removes periodic fractions and rounding errors completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has little to do with the decimal vs. binary base .
If there is a fixed granularity , you do n't need floating point .
Storing the value as an integer representing tenths of a second ( rather than a float representing seconds ) removes periodic fractions and rounding errors completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has little to do with the decimal vs. binary base.
If there is a fixed granularity, you don't need floating point.
Storing the value as an integer representing tenths of a second (rather than a float representing seconds) removes periodic fractions and rounding errors completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936505</id>
	<title>umh</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257021960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> But all these tiny amounts add up</p></div></blockquote><p>
only if the algorithm is numerically instable...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But all these tiny amounts add up only if the algorithm is numerically instable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But all these tiny amounts add up
only if the algorithm is numerically instable...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935631</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257014340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they just suck at programming. And they're blaming the computers for all those deaths.<br>I blame whatever idiots programmed it, as I'm a 15 year old who programs for fun, and I know better than to make that mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they just suck at programming .
And they 're blaming the computers for all those deaths.I blame whatever idiots programmed it , as I 'm a 15 year old who programs for fun , and I know better than to make that mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they just suck at programming.
And they're blaming the computers for all those deaths.I blame whatever idiots programmed it, as I'm a 15 year old who programs for fun, and I know better than to make that mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935839</id>
	<title>Re:Designed by who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you on about?  They weren't running Patriots with IBM PC's.</p><p>How much of that stuff was available 10 or more years ago?  How much of it was available at a reasonable cost (even for military usage)?</p><p>Don't judge if you don't know the circumstances surrounding the design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you on about ?
They were n't running Patriots with IBM PC 's.How much of that stuff was available 10 or more years ago ?
How much of it was available at a reasonable cost ( even for military usage ) ? Do n't judge if you do n't know the circumstances surrounding the design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you on about?
They weren't running Patriots with IBM PC's.How much of that stuff was available 10 or more years ago?
How much of it was available at a reasonable cost (even for military usage)?Don't judge if you don't know the circumstances surrounding the design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933899</id>
	<title>I'm not impressed ...</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1256998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remain very much unimpressed by the article, due mainly to it's rather sensationalist focus on missile systems and Ariane but also to it's apparent ignorance of a now 50-year old branch of applied Mathematics: Numerical Analysis (see e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical\_analysis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical\_analysis</a> [wikipedia.org]) and its failure to distinguish between the root causes of both system failures. The Ariane failure (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501</a> [wikipedia.org] ) was interesting in that the software itself was Numerically sound, but it only failed to watch for overflow:<blockquote><div><p>Efficiency considerations had led to the disabling of the software handler (in Ada code) for this error trap, although other conversions of comparable variables in the code remained protected. This led to a cascade of problems, culminating in destruction of the entire flight.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The Patriot case was simply unsound from a numerical point of view because it used an approximation which accumulated errors to the point where they seriously compromised the end result, which is a whole thing altogether (and mathematically speaking much simpler and more fundamental).
</p><p>
Numerical analysis is basically about "How can we make sure that a computer algorithm on such-and-such hardware will always produce an answer to this-and-this mathematical problem with such-and-such error bounds.". This really isn't something like "coding well", but it can require complicated and careful mathematics to get right, which is something programmers usually haven't a clue about. Instead, and provided the effort is warranted by the application, one needs to have a competent Numerical Analyst (a fancy title for a Mathematician specialized in this particular field) check (if not actually design) the software. Coders can then do the rest, provided there is sufficient communication between the architect (the numerical analyst) and the builders (the coders) about all the quirks of the hardware and how they are accounted for and dealt with.
</p><p>
Every CS graduate is supposed to know that advanced numerical work with computers (like those in the Patriot system, where the 0.3 second error is a fine example of negligence) falls under the domain of Numerical Analysis and require specialist attention. This is why some jobs should be undertaken by software engineers, not coders.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remain very much unimpressed by the article , due mainly to it 's rather sensationalist focus on missile systems and Ariane but also to it 's apparent ignorance of a now 50-year old branch of applied Mathematics : Numerical Analysis ( see e.g .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical \ _analysis [ wikipedia.org ] ) and its failure to distinguish between the root causes of both system failures .
The Ariane failure ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane \ _5 \ _Flight \ _501 [ wikipedia.org ] ) was interesting in that the software itself was Numerically sound , but it only failed to watch for overflow : Efficiency considerations had led to the disabling of the software handler ( in Ada code ) for this error trap , although other conversions of comparable variables in the code remained protected .
This led to a cascade of problems , culminating in destruction of the entire flight .
The Patriot case was simply unsound from a numerical point of view because it used an approximation which accumulated errors to the point where they seriously compromised the end result , which is a whole thing altogether ( and mathematically speaking much simpler and more fundamental ) .
Numerical analysis is basically about " How can we make sure that a computer algorithm on such-and-such hardware will always produce an answer to this-and-this mathematical problem with such-and-such error bounds. " .
This really is n't something like " coding well " , but it can require complicated and careful mathematics to get right , which is something programmers usually have n't a clue about .
Instead , and provided the effort is warranted by the application , one needs to have a competent Numerical Analyst ( a fancy title for a Mathematician specialized in this particular field ) check ( if not actually design ) the software .
Coders can then do the rest , provided there is sufficient communication between the architect ( the numerical analyst ) and the builders ( the coders ) about all the quirks of the hardware and how they are accounted for and dealt with .
Every CS graduate is supposed to know that advanced numerical work with computers ( like those in the Patriot system , where the 0.3 second error is a fine example of negligence ) falls under the domain of Numerical Analysis and require specialist attention .
This is why some jobs should be undertaken by software engineers , not coders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remain very much unimpressed by the article, due mainly to it's rather sensationalist focus on missile systems and Ariane but also to it's apparent ignorance of a now 50-year old branch of applied Mathematics: Numerical Analysis (see e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical\_analysis [wikipedia.org]) and its failure to distinguish between the root causes of both system failures.
The Ariane failure (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501 [wikipedia.org] ) was interesting in that the software itself was Numerically sound, but it only failed to watch for overflow:Efficiency considerations had led to the disabling of the software handler (in Ada code) for this error trap, although other conversions of comparable variables in the code remained protected.
This led to a cascade of problems, culminating in destruction of the entire flight.
The Patriot case was simply unsound from a numerical point of view because it used an approximation which accumulated errors to the point where they seriously compromised the end result, which is a whole thing altogether (and mathematically speaking much simpler and more fundamental).
Numerical analysis is basically about "How can we make sure that a computer algorithm on such-and-such hardware will always produce an answer to this-and-this mathematical problem with such-and-such error bounds.".
This really isn't something like "coding well", but it can require complicated and careful mathematics to get right, which is something programmers usually haven't a clue about.
Instead, and provided the effort is warranted by the application, one needs to have a competent Numerical Analyst (a fancy title for a Mathematician specialized in this particular field) check (if not actually design) the software.
Coders can then do the rest, provided there is sufficient communication between the architect (the numerical analyst) and the builders (the coders) about all the quirks of the hardware and how they are accounted for and dealt with.
Every CS graduate is supposed to know that advanced numerical work with computers (like those in the Patriot system, where the 0.3 second error is a fine example of negligence) falls under the domain of Numerical Analysis and require specialist attention.
This is why some jobs should be undertaken by software engineers, not coders.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934177</id>
	<title>Is this really a rounding error ?</title>
	<author>Cochonou</author>
	<datestamp>1257001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to look at the typical accuracy of time references. Military crystal oscillators are usually accurate down to 0.5 or 1 ppm, but that's about the best you can usually get. For instance, look at <a href="http://q-tech.com/hiRel.html" title="q-tech.com">Q-Tech</a> [q-tech.com] offerings, which is standard technology for avionics. So let's check... 100 hours * 3600 seconds * 1 ppm = 0.36 seconds. Even without rounding errors, the error would have been the same if the system was running from a 1 ppm crystal oscillator. It seems to me that the real problem is that the time references of the different radars were not synchronized more often.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to look at the typical accuracy of time references .
Military crystal oscillators are usually accurate down to 0.5 or 1 ppm , but that 's about the best you can usually get .
For instance , look at Q-Tech [ q-tech.com ] offerings , which is standard technology for avionics .
So let 's check... 100 hours * 3600 seconds * 1 ppm = 0.36 seconds .
Even without rounding errors , the error would have been the same if the system was running from a 1 ppm crystal oscillator .
It seems to me that the real problem is that the time references of the different radars were not synchronized more often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to look at the typical accuracy of time references.
Military crystal oscillators are usually accurate down to 0.5 or 1 ppm, but that's about the best you can usually get.
For instance, look at Q-Tech [q-tech.com] offerings, which is standard technology for avionics.
So let's check... 100 hours * 3600 seconds * 1 ppm = 0.36 seconds.
Even without rounding errors, the error would have been the same if the system was running from a 1 ppm crystal oscillator.
It seems to me that the real problem is that the time references of the different radars were not synchronized more often.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935485</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>stonefoz</author>
	<datestamp>1257012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So clocks only move at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 intervals and I never have to use division? What wonderful world to you live in? I expressed it exactly for fix, it's a speed hack that still caries all the problems of float. Not if there is something to be measured that does in fact only happens in quantified increments, then yes, count on those. Time is not one of those things. <br>

So you are quite wrong about fixed point not rounding. 10/3 is always going to be estimated without storing it in a large-number, fractional representation. The last number is always a guess, else it isn't a measurement. Measurements are always estimated, and counts can be held in exact amounts in binary. Time is not a count however, as time does not only change at specified increments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So clocks only move at .1 intervals and I never have to use division ?
What wonderful world to you live in ?
I expressed it exactly for fix , it 's a speed hack that still caries all the problems of float .
Not if there is something to be measured that does in fact only happens in quantified increments , then yes , count on those .
Time is not one of those things .
So you are quite wrong about fixed point not rounding .
10/3 is always going to be estimated without storing it in a large-number , fractional representation .
The last number is always a guess , else it is n't a measurement .
Measurements are always estimated , and counts can be held in exact amounts in binary .
Time is not a count however , as time does not only change at specified increments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So clocks only move at .1 intervals and I never have to use division?
What wonderful world to you live in?
I expressed it exactly for fix, it's a speed hack that still caries all the problems of float.
Not if there is something to be measured that does in fact only happens in quantified increments, then yes, count on those.
Time is not one of those things.
So you are quite wrong about fixed point not rounding.
10/3 is always going to be estimated without storing it in a large-number, fractional representation.
The last number is always a guess, else it isn't a measurement.
Measurements are always estimated, and counts can be held in exact amounts in binary.
Time is not a count however, as time does not only change at specified increments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936273</id>
	<title>Baiting Saddam</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1257019980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bush I administration tricked Saddam into thinking the U.S. would not respond to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  Accordingly, 100,000 people paid with their lives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush I administration tricked Saddam into thinking the U.S. would not respond to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait .
Accordingly , 100,000 people paid with their lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush I administration tricked Saddam into thinking the U.S. would not respond to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Accordingly, 100,000 people paid with their lives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934503</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mods, don't judge too harshly. this idiotic post was the result of a meatware rounding error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mods , do n't judge too harshly .
this idiotic post was the result of a meatware rounding error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mods, don't judge too harshly.
this idiotic post was the result of a meatware rounding error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934105</id>
	<title>Misplaced Blame</title>
	<author>Matey-O</author>
	<datestamp>1257000720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, don't actually blame the \_scud\_ for the deaths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , do n't actually blame the \ _scud \ _ for the deaths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, don't actually blame the \_scud\_ for the deaths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941111</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1257085080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheba Farms is claimed by Syria as well as Lebanon, <i>and</i> Israel can make a valid claim on top of that.  Note that AFAIK Sheba Farms is an Israeli civilian zone rather than a military-occupied zone such as the West Bank.  You can call me flamebait (no, I actually intended to provide relevant information) when you get all three of those countries with different legitimate claims to sort out who the hell the Farms belong to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheba Farms is claimed by Syria as well as Lebanon , and Israel can make a valid claim on top of that .
Note that AFAIK Sheba Farms is an Israeli civilian zone rather than a military-occupied zone such as the West Bank .
You can call me flamebait ( no , I actually intended to provide relevant information ) when you get all three of those countries with different legitimate claims to sort out who the hell the Farms belong to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheba Farms is claimed by Syria as well as Lebanon, and Israel can make a valid claim on top of that.
Note that AFAIK Sheba Farms is an Israeli civilian zone rather than a military-occupied zone such as the West Bank.
You can call me flamebait (no, I actually intended to provide relevant information) when you get all three of those countries with different legitimate claims to sort out who the hell the Farms belong to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935365</id>
	<title>Defense contractors CS skills often lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the early nineties a college friend came to me with a problem she was having at work.  She was working on a digital compass to be installed in the F-16.  There was a raster screen and a circle with tick marks was part of the compass display.  They were having difficulties drawing the circle rapidly enough and her management was considering installing a floating point co-processor to make things run faster.  After a bit of discussion, it turned out that the circle drawing algorithm they were using was based on sin/cos.  She was fairly new on the project and while her graphics background was not very deep, she did know that there should be better ways to do things.</p><p>We had a bit of a discussion on better circle drawing algorithms as well as the joys of pre-computation, look up tables and not redrawing things that were not really changing.  I still shudder to think of what other cruft must have been lurking in that software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the early nineties a college friend came to me with a problem she was having at work .
She was working on a digital compass to be installed in the F-16 .
There was a raster screen and a circle with tick marks was part of the compass display .
They were having difficulties drawing the circle rapidly enough and her management was considering installing a floating point co-processor to make things run faster .
After a bit of discussion , it turned out that the circle drawing algorithm they were using was based on sin/cos .
She was fairly new on the project and while her graphics background was not very deep , she did know that there should be better ways to do things.We had a bit of a discussion on better circle drawing algorithms as well as the joys of pre-computation , look up tables and not redrawing things that were not really changing .
I still shudder to think of what other cruft must have been lurking in that software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the early nineties a college friend came to me with a problem she was having at work.
She was working on a digital compass to be installed in the F-16.
There was a raster screen and a circle with tick marks was part of the compass display.
They were having difficulties drawing the circle rapidly enough and her management was considering installing a floating point co-processor to make things run faster.
After a bit of discussion, it turned out that the circle drawing algorithm they were using was based on sin/cos.
She was fairly new on the project and while her graphics background was not very deep, she did know that there should be better ways to do things.We had a bit of a discussion on better circle drawing algorithms as well as the joys of pre-computation, look up tables and not redrawing things that were not really changing.
I still shudder to think of what other cruft must have been lurking in that software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29942474</id>
	<title>The irony of /. moderation</title>
	<author>blamanj</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that most of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd are programmers, I find it rather ironic that most of comments moderated up to 5 talk about needing better QA and the comments about learning numerical analysis are down at 1 and 2. Blaming someone else may feel good, but learning intricacies of the profession are what it takes to actually fix the problem.</p><p>That said, as someone who's actually studied NA, I don't apply it often enough, because the tools we use day to day don't help very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that most of the / .
crowd are programmers , I find it rather ironic that most of comments moderated up to 5 talk about needing better QA and the comments about learning numerical analysis are down at 1 and 2 .
Blaming someone else may feel good , but learning intricacies of the profession are what it takes to actually fix the problem.That said , as someone who 's actually studied NA , I do n't apply it often enough , because the tools we use day to day do n't help very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that most of the /.
crowd are programmers, I find it rather ironic that most of comments moderated up to 5 talk about needing better QA and the comments about learning numerical analysis are down at 1 and 2.
Blaming someone else may feel good, but learning intricacies of the profession are what it takes to actually fix the problem.That said, as someone who's actually studied NA, I don't apply it often enough, because the tools we use day to day don't help very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935529</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because lots of people thing that computers are precise, accurate computational devices. It is easy to forget that someone sat down and wrote lines and lines of code that allowed the computer screen in front of them to very quickly spit out an answer to a mathemetical question. To many users, the computer is literally solving the equation by itself accurately.</p><p>I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because lots of people thing that computers are precise , accurate computational devices .
It is easy to forget that someone sat down and wrote lines and lines of code that allowed the computer screen in front of them to very quickly spit out an answer to a mathemetical question .
To many users , the computer is literally solving the equation by itself accurately.I 'm not saying anything , I 'm just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because lots of people thing that computers are precise, accurate computational devices.
It is easy to forget that someone sat down and wrote lines and lines of code that allowed the computer screen in front of them to very quickly spit out an answer to a mathemetical question.
To many users, the computer is literally solving the equation by itself accurately.I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933759</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1256997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dificult and imprecise. Lots of developers have bugs in their code that they dont even imagine its due to floating point errors. Im mantaining a ARM codebase with lots of floats and now I can see this into action (beforehand I mantained mostly fixed-point apps).</p><p>There are lots simple acts with floats that can improve accurancy that most people are unaware of and that could have saved lives.<br>(ok, same goes to fixed-point)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dificult and imprecise .
Lots of developers have bugs in their code that they dont even imagine its due to floating point errors .
Im mantaining a ARM codebase with lots of floats and now I can see this into action ( beforehand I mantained mostly fixed-point apps ) .There are lots simple acts with floats that can improve accurancy that most people are unaware of and that could have saved lives .
( ok , same goes to fixed-point )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dificult and imprecise.
Lots of developers have bugs in their code that they dont even imagine its due to floating point errors.
Im mantaining a ARM codebase with lots of floats and now I can see this into action (beforehand I mantained mostly fixed-point apps).There are lots simple acts with floats that can improve accurancy that most people are unaware of and that could have saved lives.
(ok, same goes to fixed-point)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935491</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1257012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, when did a story about computers sucking at math become another Palestine thread?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , when did a story about computers sucking at math become another Palestine thread ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, when did a story about computers sucking at math become another Palestine thread?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935293</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1257011280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ABSOLUTE PILLOCK didn't design, implement or test their system properly.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bear in mind that the system was engineered to require a reset once every 36 hours to eliminate arithmetic drift, but the operators failed to do so.</p><blockquote><div><p>There's no excuse for this - it's basic, elementary mathematics and binary manipulation. Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical, life-dependent military problem without even thinking. The programmers should be sacked, the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they haven't made even worse mistakes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Um, no. At best, the trainers and manual writers need re-education. It's their fault for not passing on the equipment maintenance requirements to the end users, who through incorrect action caused the gear to silently fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ABSOLUTE PILLOCK did n't design , implement or test their system properly.Bear in mind that the system was engineered to require a reset once every 36 hours to eliminate arithmetic drift , but the operators failed to do so.There 's no excuse for this - it 's basic , elementary mathematics and binary manipulation .
Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical , life-dependent military problem without even thinking .
The programmers should be sacked , the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they 've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they have n't made even worse mistakes.Um , no .
At best , the trainers and manual writers need re-education .
It 's their fault for not passing on the equipment maintenance requirements to the end users , who through incorrect action caused the gear to silently fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ABSOLUTE PILLOCK didn't design, implement or test their system properly.Bear in mind that the system was engineered to require a reset once every 36 hours to eliminate arithmetic drift, but the operators failed to do so.There's no excuse for this - it's basic, elementary mathematics and binary manipulation.
Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical, life-dependent military problem without even thinking.
The programmers should be sacked, the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they haven't made even worse mistakes.Um, no.
At best, the trainers and manual writers need re-education.
It's their fault for not passing on the equipment maintenance requirements to the end users, who through incorrect action caused the gear to silently fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934671</id>
	<title>I call bullsh*t</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1257005100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know any computer that uses a 0.1 second tick period.  Even crappy Linux 2.4 has a 100 Hz tick rate.  I seriously doubt a system like the Patriot would have less than half a mile resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know any computer that uses a 0.1 second tick period .
Even crappy Linux 2.4 has a 100 Hz tick rate .
I seriously doubt a system like the Patriot would have less than half a mile resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know any computer that uses a 0.1 second tick period.
Even crappy Linux 2.4 has a 100 Hz tick rate.
I seriously doubt a system like the Patriot would have less than half a mile resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679</id>
	<title>don't blame the computer for bad programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is absurd to blame the computer (or worse, all computers) for what is bad programming. Computers can store a 1/10 of a second perfectly accurately, as long as it is stored in a variable that counts tenths of seconds rather than seconds. It can easily be stored as an integer that way, avoiding any floating point rounding errors. <p>
There certainly are cases of bad math in computers, particularly Intel computers. But this isn't such an example. This is just a lazy and stupid programmer who didn't understand what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people, not the computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is absurd to blame the computer ( or worse , all computers ) for what is bad programming .
Computers can store a 1/10 of a second perfectly accurately , as long as it is stored in a variable that counts tenths of seconds rather than seconds .
It can easily be stored as an integer that way , avoiding any floating point rounding errors .
There certainly are cases of bad math in computers , particularly Intel computers .
But this is n't such an example .
This is just a lazy and stupid programmer who did n't understand what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people , not the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is absurd to blame the computer (or worse, all computers) for what is bad programming.
Computers can store a 1/10 of a second perfectly accurately, as long as it is stored in a variable that counts tenths of seconds rather than seconds.
It can easily be stored as an integer that way, avoiding any floating point rounding errors.
There certainly are cases of bad math in computers, particularly Intel computers.
But this isn't such an example.
This is just a lazy and stupid programmer who didn't understand what he was really doing who should take the blame for the failure that killed people, not the computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934613</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>Binder</author>
	<datestamp>1257004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why writing software is more than simply learning a language.  You also have to learn how the machine works.</p><p>Also, this isn't a problem with binary representation.  You have the same issue with decimal representation.  Try dividing 10/3 and then performing a bunch of math on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why writing software is more than simply learning a language .
You also have to learn how the machine works.Also , this is n't a problem with binary representation .
You have the same issue with decimal representation .
Try dividing 10/3 and then performing a bunch of math on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why writing software is more than simply learning a language.
You also have to learn how the machine works.Also, this isn't a problem with binary representation.
You have the same issue with decimal representation.
Try dividing 10/3 and then performing a bunch of math on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933757</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because "interval arithmetic" as a part of math still needs to be discovered by some - after 40 odd years of its existence...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because " interval arithmetic " as a part of math still needs to be discovered by some - after 40 odd years of its existence.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because "interval arithmetic" as a part of math still needs to be discovered by some - after 40 odd years of its existence...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933973</id>
	<title>Re:Curse of binary floating point</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just keep track of things in increments that make sense in binary.  0.1 seconds is arbitrarily chosen to be nice number in decimal.  They should have chosen an arbitrary time interval that is a nice interval in binary, the base they were actually using.</p><p>This article isn't about how computers suck at math, it's about how people suck at math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just keep track of things in increments that make sense in binary .
0.1 seconds is arbitrarily chosen to be nice number in decimal .
They should have chosen an arbitrary time interval that is a nice interval in binary , the base they were actually using.This article is n't about how computers suck at math , it 's about how people suck at math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just keep track of things in increments that make sense in binary.
0.1 seconds is arbitrarily chosen to be nice number in decimal.
They should have chosen an arbitrary time interval that is a nice interval in binary, the base they were actually using.This article isn't about how computers suck at math, it's about how people suck at math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934681</id>
	<title>What a stupid article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone read the case study on this problem? The "solution" for this was simply to reboot the system every day. Now the argument for this solution does not really matter but the key thing to note is that the original proposal never stated that the system was to be on for weeks on end. This is not a code failure, it is a contractual failure on both sides. The customer should have had this stipulation in the contract, and the supplier should have found out such important information before the designing of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone read the case study on this problem ?
The " solution " for this was simply to reboot the system every day .
Now the argument for this solution does not really matter but the key thing to note is that the original proposal never stated that the system was to be on for weeks on end .
This is not a code failure , it is a contractual failure on both sides .
The customer should have had this stipulation in the contract , and the supplier should have found out such important information before the designing of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone read the case study on this problem?
The "solution" for this was simply to reboot the system every day.
Now the argument for this solution does not really matter but the key thing to note is that the original proposal never stated that the system was to be on for weeks on end.
This is not a code failure, it is a contractual failure on both sides.
The customer should have had this stipulation in the contract, and the supplier should have found out such important information before the designing of the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939219</id>
	<title>1970's QA was fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't blame QA.</p><p>The system worked fine in my PowerPoint design!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame QA.The system worked fine in my PowerPoint design ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't blame QA.The system worked fine in my PowerPoint design!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599</id>
	<title>Stupid article, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: computers are only as smart as the people programming them... and there's plenty of stupid people out there.</p><p>We knew this.  This is no great revelation.  So why is this news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : computers are only as smart as the people programming them... and there 's plenty of stupid people out there.We knew this .
This is no great revelation .
So why is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: computers are only as smart as the people programming them... and there's plenty of stupid people out there.We knew this.
This is no great revelation.
So why is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29942422</id>
	<title>Computer Science, or lack there of</title>
	<author>mlwmohawk</author>
	<datestamp>1257098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, this just pisses me off. Computers do not suck at math because they don't do math. They do add, subtract, multiply, and divide within their limitations. Hell, it wasn't until the 8088 that I used a micro that could multiply or divide. It has *always* been the job of the computer scientist to understand this.</p><p>It is *new* computer science that teaches languages like java or C# that abstract "computers" from the programs. I guess using theoretical computers is easier for moron professors to teach. I learned computer science from one of the old school teachers (ex-navy weather research) who would bitch about the usage of bits and bytes in a program.</p><p>I'm not sorry to say that "Computer Science" has to be more about the science of using COMPUTERS, not about some abstract ideal computer like edifice "virtual machine." I learned computer science as a way to model REAL problems on REAL computers, understanding limits and even using them advantageously. Algorithms are often incomplete or fundamentally wrong when they ignore the simple fact that they are running on a real computer with real limitations.</p><p>For all you java and dot net zealots who say, and I am quoting many of you, "Why do I need to know how that works" when it comes to lists, trees, hash tables, mutex, semaphores, MATH, and so on. This is but one example. If you KNEW how these things worked, you wouldn't be bitten in the arse when they didn't do as you imagined they would.</p><p>One of the first things you should learn in computer science in school or self education is that floating point is an approximation with limited precision. Any math done with it, must be done in the correct order that preserves as much precision as possible, and even then, if your precision requirements exceed the decimal accuracy of 64 bit floating point, then you can't do your math with floating point. You will have to code your own or buy/use a 3rd party precision math package.</p><p>Floting point is fine for a lot of things, but not everything, but if your computer science teacher didn't beat you head in with the limitations, you missed out. "How" "real" computers work is fascinating, and just knowing how they work affect how you code.  Here's the big question.....</p><p>Now that you know floating point is not accurate, how many past projects would you double check to make sure they really do work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this just pisses me off .
Computers do not suck at math because they do n't do math .
They do add , subtract , multiply , and divide within their limitations .
Hell , it was n't until the 8088 that I used a micro that could multiply or divide .
It has * always * been the job of the computer scientist to understand this.It is * new * computer science that teaches languages like java or C # that abstract " computers " from the programs .
I guess using theoretical computers is easier for moron professors to teach .
I learned computer science from one of the old school teachers ( ex-navy weather research ) who would bitch about the usage of bits and bytes in a program.I 'm not sorry to say that " Computer Science " has to be more about the science of using COMPUTERS , not about some abstract ideal computer like edifice " virtual machine .
" I learned computer science as a way to model REAL problems on REAL computers , understanding limits and even using them advantageously .
Algorithms are often incomplete or fundamentally wrong when they ignore the simple fact that they are running on a real computer with real limitations.For all you java and dot net zealots who say , and I am quoting many of you , " Why do I need to know how that works " when it comes to lists , trees , hash tables , mutex , semaphores , MATH , and so on .
This is but one example .
If you KNEW how these things worked , you would n't be bitten in the arse when they did n't do as you imagined they would.One of the first things you should learn in computer science in school or self education is that floating point is an approximation with limited precision .
Any math done with it , must be done in the correct order that preserves as much precision as possible , and even then , if your precision requirements exceed the decimal accuracy of 64 bit floating point , then you ca n't do your math with floating point .
You will have to code your own or buy/use a 3rd party precision math package.Floting point is fine for a lot of things , but not everything , but if your computer science teacher did n't beat you head in with the limitations , you missed out .
" How " " real " computers work is fascinating , and just knowing how they work affect how you code .
Here 's the big question.....Now that you know floating point is not accurate , how many past projects would you double check to make sure they really do work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this just pisses me off.
Computers do not suck at math because they don't do math.
They do add, subtract, multiply, and divide within their limitations.
Hell, it wasn't until the 8088 that I used a micro that could multiply or divide.
It has *always* been the job of the computer scientist to understand this.It is *new* computer science that teaches languages like java or C# that abstract "computers" from the programs.
I guess using theoretical computers is easier for moron professors to teach.
I learned computer science from one of the old school teachers (ex-navy weather research) who would bitch about the usage of bits and bytes in a program.I'm not sorry to say that "Computer Science" has to be more about the science of using COMPUTERS, not about some abstract ideal computer like edifice "virtual machine.
" I learned computer science as a way to model REAL problems on REAL computers, understanding limits and even using them advantageously.
Algorithms are often incomplete or fundamentally wrong when they ignore the simple fact that they are running on a real computer with real limitations.For all you java and dot net zealots who say, and I am quoting many of you, "Why do I need to know how that works" when it comes to lists, trees, hash tables, mutex, semaphores, MATH, and so on.
This is but one example.
If you KNEW how these things worked, you wouldn't be bitten in the arse when they didn't do as you imagined they would.One of the first things you should learn in computer science in school or self education is that floating point is an approximation with limited precision.
Any math done with it, must be done in the correct order that preserves as much precision as possible, and even then, if your precision requirements exceed the decimal accuracy of 64 bit floating point, then you can't do your math with floating point.
You will have to code your own or buy/use a 3rd party precision math package.Floting point is fine for a lot of things, but not everything, but if your computer science teacher didn't beat you head in with the limitations, you missed out.
"How" "real" computers work is fascinating, and just knowing how they work affect how you code.
Here's the big question.....Now that you know floating point is not accurate, how many past projects would you double check to make sure they really do work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933997</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had much the same recommendation for the floating point system - just reboot it every 36 hours.  The operators decided to ignore that recommendation because there was a bit of a war going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had much the same recommendation for the floating point system - just reboot it every 36 hours .
The operators decided to ignore that recommendation because there was a bit of a war going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had much the same recommendation for the floating point system - just reboot it every 36 hours.
The operators decided to ignore that recommendation because there was a bit of a war going on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933843</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any symbolic math Libraries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936179</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>cathector</author>
	<datestamp>1257018900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or better, write software that can deal with the timer wrapping around. it's not that hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or better , write software that can deal with the timer wrapping around .
it 's not that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or better, write software that can deal with the timer wrapping around.
it's not that hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933775</id>
	<title>May I suggest that it's not the computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that sucks at maths, but some programmers?<br>OK, that was an easy shot, but really, don't you agree that today's academic courses in science at large are becoming so specialized so soon that good sense stemming from scientific culture cannot be expected any more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that sucks at maths , but some programmers ? OK , that was an easy shot , but really , do n't you agree that today 's academic courses in science at large are becoming so specialized so soon that good sense stemming from scientific culture can not be expected any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that sucks at maths, but some programmers?OK, that was an easy shot, but really, don't you agree that today's academic courses in science at large are becoming so specialized so soon that good sense stemming from scientific culture cannot be expected any more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936653</id>
	<title>32768 Hz</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1256979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The crystal you find in an ordinary wrist watch gives you ticks in increments of 1/32768 second. 32768 is a power of 2 (2^15) and encodes extremely well into a binary computer.<br>If a cheap watch can encode time in a way that is convenient for a computer, why can't a billion dollar missile system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The crystal you find in an ordinary wrist watch gives you ticks in increments of 1/32768 second .
32768 is a power of 2 ( 2 ^ 15 ) and encodes extremely well into a binary computer.If a cheap watch can encode time in a way that is convenient for a computer , why ca n't a billion dollar missile system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crystal you find in an ordinary wrist watch gives you ticks in increments of 1/32768 second.
32768 is a power of 2 (2^15) and encodes extremely well into a binary computer.If a cheap watch can encode time in a way that is convenient for a computer, why can't a billion dollar missile system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934337</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subject changed to reflect Parent's misinformation. If you look a little more carefully, the Patriot did stop Scuds later on- I assume after the bugfix mentioned went in. While not 100\%, it did eventually earn its salt, with it's score a lot higher than "zero".</p><p>As to the Israeli system... I guess they haven't worked the bugs out yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject changed to reflect Parent 's misinformation .
If you look a little more carefully , the Patriot did stop Scuds later on- I assume after the bugfix mentioned went in .
While not 100 \ % , it did eventually earn its salt , with it 's score a lot higher than " zero " .As to the Israeli system... I guess they have n't worked the bugs out yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject changed to reflect Parent's misinformation.
If you look a little more carefully, the Patriot did stop Scuds later on- I assume after the bugfix mentioned went in.
While not 100\%, it did eventually earn its salt, with it's score a lot higher than "zero".As to the Israeli system... I guess they haven't worked the bugs out yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941003</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1257083640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm astounded that such profound ignorance of the Sheeba Farms issue is widespread enough for you to be modded as informative rather than the flamebait I suspect you intended to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm astounded that such profound ignorance of the Sheeba Farms issue is widespread enough for you to be modded as informative rather than the flamebait I suspect you intended to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm astounded that such profound ignorance of the Sheeba Farms issue is widespread enough for you to be modded as informative rather than the flamebait I suspect you intended to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799</id>
	<title>Re:What?!</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1256997660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except it's never that simple.  Other components rely on the data being in seconds.  There's all sorts of hardcoded values in seconds.  The specification states 0.1 seconds so it's impossible to change it to something more convenient without restarting at the specification stage.  You'll end up looking a the code and asking "who the hell wrote this!?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it 's never that simple .
Other components rely on the data being in seconds .
There 's all sorts of hardcoded values in seconds .
The specification states 0.1 seconds so it 's impossible to change it to something more convenient without restarting at the specification stage .
You 'll end up looking a the code and asking " who the hell wrote this ! ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it's never that simple.
Other components rely on the data being in seconds.
There's all sorts of hardcoded values in seconds.
The specification states 0.1 seconds so it's impossible to change it to something more convenient without restarting at the specification stage.
You'll end up looking a the code and asking "who the hell wrote this!?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934981</id>
	<title>Integer Math</title>
	<author>originalhack</author>
	<datestamp>1257007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, that's why most timing belts are really timing chains.<br><br>Second (to the earlier posters), testing is way to late to catch this type of problem.<br><br>This is the sort of thing that should be caught at design review where the "tenths of a second" are actually computed as INTEGER hundred-counts of a millisecond timer that is the fundamental time-base for the system and is "adjtime"d to prevent it from accumulating error relative to a very reliable time reference (like GPS).<br><br>Of course, this is what happens when managers think all programmers are interchangeable and don't value engineers who have a clear view of what they are doing and why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , that 's why most timing belts are really timing chains.Second ( to the earlier posters ) , testing is way to late to catch this type of problem.This is the sort of thing that should be caught at design review where the " tenths of a second " are actually computed as INTEGER hundred-counts of a millisecond timer that is the fundamental time-base for the system and is " adjtime " d to prevent it from accumulating error relative to a very reliable time reference ( like GPS ) .Of course , this is what happens when managers think all programmers are interchangeable and do n't value engineers who have a clear view of what they are doing and why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, that's why most timing belts are really timing chains.Second (to the earlier posters), testing is way to late to catch this type of problem.This is the sort of thing that should be caught at design review where the "tenths of a second" are actually computed as INTEGER hundred-counts of a millisecond timer that is the fundamental time-base for the system and is "adjtime"d to prevent it from accumulating error relative to a very reliable time reference (like GPS).Of course, this is what happens when managers think all programmers are interchangeable and don't value engineers who have a clear view of what they are doing and why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933623</id>
	<title>Because they are programmed by morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The computer is not at fault here. The problem is the moron who thought floating point representation is a good choice for a fixed point value.</p><p>These problems are just too common. Like some game company discovered weird display in their game. Found out that floating point numbers are not very precise when far away from 0, like in a huge seamless world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The computer is not at fault here .
The problem is the moron who thought floating point representation is a good choice for a fixed point value.These problems are just too common .
Like some game company discovered weird display in their game .
Found out that floating point numbers are not very precise when far away from 0 , like in a huge seamless world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The computer is not at fault here.
The problem is the moron who thought floating point representation is a good choice for a fixed point value.These problems are just too common.
Like some game company discovered weird display in their game.
Found out that floating point numbers are not very precise when far away from 0, like in a huge seamless world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935419</id>
	<title>Re:Poor QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place.</p></div></blockquote><p>Correct.</p><blockquote><div><p>Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").</p></div></blockquote><p>You missed the third option, which is for the motivation behind the firing of rockets to be removed.</p><p>You know, remove all those illegal settlements, dismantle the wall that has effectively stolen the real estate property of thousands of innocent civilians, and allow refugees to return to their homes.</p><p>But I suppose it's easier just to send the tanks in again, and then wonder why the rockets keep on coming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they 're fired in the first place.Correct.Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists , or someone does it for them ( that 's called " occupation " ) .You missed the third option , which is for the motivation behind the firing of rockets to be removed.You know , remove all those illegal settlements , dismantle the wall that has effectively stolen the real estate property of thousands of innocent civilians , and allow refugees to return to their homes.But I suppose it 's easier just to send the tanks in again , and then wonder why the rockets keep on coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only solution for those rocket attacks is preventing they're fired in the first place.Correct.Which obviously requires either palestinians police their own terrorists, or someone does it for them (that's called "occupation").You missed the third option, which is for the motivation behind the firing of rockets to be removed.You know, remove all those illegal settlements, dismantle the wall that has effectively stolen the real estate property of thousands of innocent civilians, and allow refugees to return to their homes.But I suppose it's easier just to send the tanks in again, and then wonder why the rockets keep on coming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701</id>
	<title>Are there any symbolic math Libraries?</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1256996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a serious developer and certainly not one that works on mission critical systems but I have a question:</p><p>Are there any symbolic math libraries that allow a program to compute and store its interim values symbolically until the final result was needed?  (Like, as an AC mentioned earlier, Mathematica?).  Of course there would be an memory overhead (but surely the entire Mathematica kernel wouldn't be needed) and performance might be much MUCH slower than current "binary math" libraries but surely in a day of gigabyte RAM chips and gigaflop CPUs (and Terflop GPUs) the added precision would be worth it?</p><p>So does anything like this exist?  Would it be hard to develop (that's a challenge for you out there!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a serious developer and certainly not one that works on mission critical systems but I have a question : Are there any symbolic math libraries that allow a program to compute and store its interim values symbolically until the final result was needed ?
( Like , as an AC mentioned earlier , Mathematica ? ) .
Of course there would be an memory overhead ( but surely the entire Mathematica kernel would n't be needed ) and performance might be much MUCH slower than current " binary math " libraries but surely in a day of gigabyte RAM chips and gigaflop CPUs ( and Terflop GPUs ) the added precision would be worth it ? So does anything like this exist ?
Would it be hard to develop ( that 's a challenge for you out there !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a serious developer and certainly not one that works on mission critical systems but I have a question:Are there any symbolic math libraries that allow a program to compute and store its interim values symbolically until the final result was needed?
(Like, as an AC mentioned earlier, Mathematica?).
Of course there would be an memory overhead (but surely the entire Mathematica kernel wouldn't be needed) and performance might be much MUCH slower than current "binary math" libraries but surely in a day of gigabyte RAM chips and gigaflop CPUs (and Terflop GPUs) the added precision would be worth it?So does anything like this exist?
Would it be hard to develop (that's a challenge for you out there!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937249</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1256985540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think after so many decades of business programming this would become common knowledge. But I can personally attest to a system written (using Java) in the early 2000s that initially used float for money. When I was brought on to the project I pointed this flaw out. Neither the technical lead nor the programmer who had a math degree could be convinced it was a problem. The other programmers, chair-warmers with a COBOL background on their first Java project, ought to have known but they'd just leaned on Money to watch their backs.</p><p>Naturally the rounding errors eventually showed up on undeniable errors and I attribute the eventual abandonment of the project in part to the loss of time caused by having to backtrack and fix all the floats to use Java's BigDecimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think after so many decades of business programming this would become common knowledge .
But I can personally attest to a system written ( using Java ) in the early 2000s that initially used float for money .
When I was brought on to the project I pointed this flaw out .
Neither the technical lead nor the programmer who had a math degree could be convinced it was a problem .
The other programmers , chair-warmers with a COBOL background on their first Java project , ought to have known but they 'd just leaned on Money to watch their backs.Naturally the rounding errors eventually showed up on undeniable errors and I attribute the eventual abandonment of the project in part to the loss of time caused by having to backtrack and fix all the floats to use Java 's BigDecimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think after so many decades of business programming this would become common knowledge.
But I can personally attest to a system written (using Java) in the early 2000s that initially used float for money.
When I was brought on to the project I pointed this flaw out.
Neither the technical lead nor the programmer who had a math degree could be convinced it was a problem.
The other programmers, chair-warmers with a COBOL background on their first Java project, ought to have known but they'd just leaned on Money to watch their backs.Naturally the rounding errors eventually showed up on undeniable errors and I attribute the eventual abandonment of the project in part to the loss of time caused by having to backtrack and fix all the floats to use Java's BigDecimal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935299</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.</i> </p><p>Or better yet if you're worth your salt make sure the rollover is no problem, and make sure the rollover is tested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision , you * know * that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours , just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows .
Or better yet if you 're worth your salt make sure the rollover is no problem , and make sure the rollover is tested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you really have to use 24 bits counters with 0.1s precision, you *know* that your timer will wrap around every 466 hours, just issue a warning to reboot every 10 days or auto reboot when it overflows.
Or better yet if you're worth your salt make sure the rollover is no problem, and make sure the rollover is tested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934847</id>
	<title>Not a math problem, an algorithm problem...</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The painfully obvious solution is to keep time by "ticks" rather than some decimal representation of seconds.</p><p>As anyone who has been through school can tell you, floating point numbers come with their own built in error.</p><p>The obvious solution is to use integers or use them as "fixed point" decimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The painfully obvious solution is to keep time by " ticks " rather than some decimal representation of seconds.As anyone who has been through school can tell you , floating point numbers come with their own built in error.The obvious solution is to use integers or use them as " fixed point " decimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The painfully obvious solution is to keep time by "ticks" rather than some decimal representation of seconds.As anyone who has been through school can tell you, floating point numbers come with their own built in error.The obvious solution is to use integers or use them as "fixed point" decimal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934253</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed point numbers?</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1257001740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the fuck is this? Who the hell even THOUGHT of putting this on Slashdot? It's common knowledge among slashdotters, because most of us are programmers or have dealt with programming in our past and by "most" I mean 999/1000 (no joke intended). You can find this in absolutely any book that explains how computer math works. You can find this information all over the Internet and in tons of books. This is not news, it's just a reminder for beginner programmers who've used computers for only a few months. In school we used to do jokes like these, showing our class mates that the Calculator in Windows was broken and the teachers always explained to us why they were broken. My parents who only use Yahoo! Messenger at home and Excel at work know this.<br>
<br>
I know that journalism is sensationalism, but this story just plain sucks.<br>
<br>
<b>Fuck you and you shitty news, Slashdot! I've had enough of your crap and I'm OUT OF HERE.</b> Seriously, how do I delete my Slashdot username?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck is this ?
Who the hell even THOUGHT of putting this on Slashdot ?
It 's common knowledge among slashdotters , because most of us are programmers or have dealt with programming in our past and by " most " I mean 999/1000 ( no joke intended ) .
You can find this in absolutely any book that explains how computer math works .
You can find this information all over the Internet and in tons of books .
This is not news , it 's just a reminder for beginner programmers who 've used computers for only a few months .
In school we used to do jokes like these , showing our class mates that the Calculator in Windows was broken and the teachers always explained to us why they were broken .
My parents who only use Yahoo !
Messenger at home and Excel at work know this .
I know that journalism is sensationalism , but this story just plain sucks .
Fuck you and you shitty news , Slashdot !
I 've had enough of your crap and I 'm OUT OF HERE .
Seriously , how do I delete my Slashdot username ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck is this?
Who the hell even THOUGHT of putting this on Slashdot?
It's common knowledge among slashdotters, because most of us are programmers or have dealt with programming in our past and by "most" I mean 999/1000 (no joke intended).
You can find this in absolutely any book that explains how computer math works.
You can find this information all over the Internet and in tons of books.
This is not news, it's just a reminder for beginner programmers who've used computers for only a few months.
In school we used to do jokes like these, showing our class mates that the Calculator in Windows was broken and the teachers always explained to us why they were broken.
My parents who only use Yahoo!
Messenger at home and Excel at work know this.
I know that journalism is sensationalism, but this story just plain sucks.
Fuck you and you shitty news, Slashdot!
I've had enough of your crap and I'm OUT OF HERE.
Seriously, how do I delete my Slashdot username?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933941</id>
	<title>Re:retrospective technological excuses</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256999100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project. Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget.</p></div><p>No, the point of the SDI project was to make the Russians spend billions of dollars more on their defence budget than they could afford and bankrupt the country.  It and the war in Afghanistan were major contributors to the fall of the USSR.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project .
Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget.No , the point of the SDI project was to make the Russians spend billions of dollars more on their defence budget than they could afford and bankrupt the country .
It and the war in Afghanistan were major contributors to the fall of the USSR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Which begs the veracity of the starwars SDI project.
Just another excuse to spend billions on the defence budget.No, the point of the SDI project was to make the Russians spend billions of dollars more on their defence budget than they could afford and bankrupt the country.
It and the war in Afghanistan were major contributors to the fall of the USSR.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936629</id>
	<title>this is a staple in numerical analysis courses</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1256979780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Error analysis is important part of your basic graduate level numerical analysis course.  This occurs in the floating point approximations used in most computers.  Also large matrix calculations which can multiply and sum numbers a huge amount of times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Error analysis is important part of your basic graduate level numerical analysis course .
This occurs in the floating point approximations used in most computers .
Also large matrix calculations which can multiply and sum numbers a huge amount of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Error analysis is important part of your basic graduate level numerical analysis course.
This occurs in the floating point approximations used in most computers.
Also large matrix calculations which can multiply and sum numbers a huge amount of times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933909</id>
	<title>The Real Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is all the math teachers around the world that teach students that all decimals after tenths or hundreths of a digit are, and I quote, "insignificant".  In this case, what you basically have is a bunch of programmers who grew up learning that anything after the tenths digit is "insignificant".  It's as simple as that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is all the math teachers around the world that teach students that all decimals after tenths or hundreths of a digit are , and I quote , " insignificant " .
In this case , what you basically have is a bunch of programmers who grew up learning that anything after the tenths digit is " insignificant " .
It 's as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is all the math teachers around the world that teach students that all decimals after tenths or hundreths of a digit are, and I quote, "insignificant".
In this case, what you basically have is a bunch of programmers who grew up learning that anything after the tenths digit is "insignificant".
It's as simple as that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895</id>
	<title>Car analogy</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1256998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This TechRadar article also explains why cars suck at math, too.</p><p>The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short.  But over the course of several thousand revolutions, those mm add up to a massive error, which causes the pistons to strike metal.  Thus the car was a write-off.</p><p>It's no fairer to blame the computer than it is the car - some ABSOLUTE PILLOCK didn't design, implement or test their system properly.  And *they* caused the 28 deaths, not the computer (and it can't be overstated just how elementary a mistake this is, especially in a military system, and should have been caught by basic code review and testing at every stage).</p><p>I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they *can* be incredibly useful, and without an adequate substitute.  Every time a car won't start because the electronic ignition wasn't designed properly, every time a home computer crashes because someone didn't bother to isolate the apps from the OS well enough, every time something like this happens, people distrust "computers" more and more when what they should be distrusting is damn crappy programming.</p><p>A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect.  Short of hardware failure (Intel FDIV bugs, bad RAM, corrupt drives etc.), computers do not make mistakes.  If they crash, it's because they've been *told* to crash (the fact that you even *see* a blue screen or kernel panic means that the computer is still just blindly following orders).</p><p>There's no excuse for this - it's basic, elementary mathematics and binary manipulation.  Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical, life-dependent military problem without even thinking.  The programmers should be sacked, the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they haven't made even worse mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This TechRadar article also explains why cars suck at math , too.The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short .
But over the course of several thousand revolutions , those mm add up to a massive error , which causes the pistons to strike metal .
Thus the car was a write-off.It 's no fairer to blame the computer than it is the car - some ABSOLUTE PILLOCK did n't design , implement or test their system properly .
And * they * caused the 28 deaths , not the computer ( and it ca n't be overstated just how elementary a mistake this is , especially in a military system , and should have been caught by basic code review and testing at every stage ) .I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they * can * be incredibly useful , and without an adequate substitute .
Every time a car wo n't start because the electronic ignition was n't designed properly , every time a home computer crashes because someone did n't bother to isolate the apps from the OS well enough , every time something like this happens , people distrust " computers " more and more when what they should be distrusting is damn crappy programming.A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect .
Short of hardware failure ( Intel FDIV bugs , bad RAM , corrupt drives etc .
) , computers do not make mistakes .
If they crash , it 's because they 've been * told * to crash ( the fact that you even * see * a blue screen or kernel panic means that the computer is still just blindly following orders ) .There 's no excuse for this - it 's basic , elementary mathematics and binary manipulation .
Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical , life-dependent military problem without even thinking .
The programmers should be sacked , the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they 've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they have n't made even worse mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This TechRadar article also explains why cars suck at math, too.The timing belt was manufactured to be a few mm too short.
But over the course of several thousand revolutions, those mm add up to a massive error, which causes the pistons to strike metal.
Thus the car was a write-off.It's no fairer to blame the computer than it is the car - some ABSOLUTE PILLOCK didn't design, implement or test their system properly.
And *they* caused the 28 deaths, not the computer (and it can't be overstated just how elementary a mistake this is, especially in a military system, and should have been caught by basic code review and testing at every stage).I hate stories like this because then you get deep mistrust of computerised systems where they *can* be incredibly useful, and without an adequate substitute.
Every time a car won't start because the electronic ignition wasn't designed properly, every time a home computer crashes because someone didn't bother to isolate the apps from the OS well enough, every time something like this happens, people distrust "computers" more and more when what they should be distrusting is damn crappy programming.A computer is as close as you can practically get to being perfect.
Short of hardware failure (Intel FDIV bugs, bad RAM, corrupt drives etc.
), computers do not make mistakes.
If they crash, it's because they've been *told* to crash (the fact that you even *see* a blue screen or kernel panic means that the computer is still just blindly following orders).There's no excuse for this - it's basic, elementary mathematics and binary manipulation.
Some pillock threw a cheap CPU clock and a standard library at a time-critical, life-dependent military problem without even thinking.
The programmers should be sacked, the testing teams should be sacked and ANYTHING they've ever created or reviewed should be overhauled to make sure they haven't made even worse mistakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934753</id>
	<title>GiNaC</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about <a href="http://www.ginac.de/" title="ginac.de">GiNaC</a> [ginac.de]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about GiNaC [ ginac.de ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about GiNaC [ginac.de]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933881</id>
	<title>Bad design anyway</title>
	<author>rnelsonee</author>
	<datestamp>1256998560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programmers' errors/naivete aside, if an error of 0.3433 seconds can mean the target aperture is 687m off, then a resolution of 0.1 seconds - even when working properly - could still be 200m off.</p><p>And I see other comments about using fixed-point. I wonder why couldn't they just use an integer and use deciseconds as their base time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers ' errors/naivete aside , if an error of 0.3433 seconds can mean the target aperture is 687m off , then a resolution of 0.1 seconds - even when working properly - could still be 200m off.And I see other comments about using fixed-point .
I wonder why could n't they just use an integer and use deciseconds as their base time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers' errors/naivete aside, if an error of 0.3433 seconds can mean the target aperture is 687m off, then a resolution of 0.1 seconds - even when working properly - could still be 200m off.And I see other comments about using fixed-point.
I wonder why couldn't they just use an integer and use deciseconds as their base time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934183</id>
	<title>Patriot wasn't designed to shoot down missiles</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1257001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Patriot was an anti-aircraft system, originally, and that it was operating outside its design parameters.</p><p>2. No system should depend on a non-synchronized free-running clock, anyway. That's not an arithmetic problem, that's a design problem. If an absolute time base is needed, you have to actually create one, not assume that everyone's clocks are going to magically stay in sync.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Patriot was an anti-aircraft system , originally , and that it was operating outside its design parameters.2 .
No system should depend on a non-synchronized free-running clock , anyway .
That 's not an arithmetic problem , that 's a design problem .
If an absolute time base is needed , you have to actually create one , not assume that everyone 's clocks are going to magically stay in sync .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Patriot was an anti-aircraft system, originally, and that it was operating outside its design parameters.2.
No system should depend on a non-synchronized free-running clock, anyway.
That's not an arithmetic problem, that's a design problem.
If an absolute time base is needed, you have to actually create one, not assume that everyone's clocks are going to magically stay in sync.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933641</id>
	<title>Computers don't suck at math, some programmers do</title>
	<author>YA\_Python\_dev</author>
	<datestamp>1256996220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the programmer, they should simply have maintained a count of the ticks in an integer and then multiplied it by 0.1 when necessary. Even better, use a proper data type, not a suckish 24-bit float in a freaking weapon, unless they understand <em>very well</em> what are they doing.</p><p>

<tt>Python 2.6.2 (release26-maint, Apr 19 2009, 01:56:41) [GCC 4.3.3] on linux2<br>
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; from decimal import Decimal, getcontext<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; n = 0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; tick = Decimal('0.1')<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; for i in range(3600000): n += tick<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; n<br>
Decimal('360000.0')<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Decimal(1) / Decimal(7)<br>
Decimal('0.1428571428571428571428571429')<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; getcontext().prec = 50<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Decimal(1) / Decimal(7)<br>
Decimal('0.14285714285714285714285714285714285714285714285714')</tt>

</p><p>And, yes, I know that Decimal in Python 2.6/3.1 is slow. Will be faster in 2.7/3.2. And there are similar libraries in Java and other languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the programmer , they should simply have maintained a count of the ticks in an integer and then multiplied it by 0.1 when necessary .
Even better , use a proper data type , not a suckish 24-bit float in a freaking weapon , unless they understand very well what are they doing .
Python 2.6.2 ( release26-maint , Apr 19 2009 , 01 : 56 : 41 ) [ GCC 4.3.3 ] on linux2 Type " help " , " copyright " , " credits " or " license " for more information .
&gt; &gt; &gt; from decimal import Decimal , getcontext &gt; &gt; &gt; n = 0 &gt; &gt; &gt; tick = Decimal ( '0.1 ' ) &gt; &gt; &gt; for i in range ( 3600000 ) : n + = tick .. . &gt; &gt; &gt; n Decimal ( '360000.0 ' ) &gt; &gt; &gt; Decimal ( 1 ) / Decimal ( 7 ) Decimal ( '0.1428571428571428571428571429 ' ) &gt; &gt; &gt; getcontext ( ) .prec = 50 &gt; &gt; &gt; Decimal ( 1 ) / Decimal ( 7 ) Decimal ( '0.14285714285714285714285714285714285714285714285714 ' ) And , yes , I know that Decimal in Python 2.6/3.1 is slow .
Will be faster in 2.7/3.2 .
And there are similar libraries in Java and other languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the programmer, they should simply have maintained a count of the ticks in an integer and then multiplied it by 0.1 when necessary.
Even better, use a proper data type, not a suckish 24-bit float in a freaking weapon, unless they understand very well what are they doing.
Python 2.6.2 (release26-maint, Apr 19 2009, 01:56:41) [GCC 4.3.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
&gt;&gt;&gt; from decimal import Decimal, getcontext
&gt;&gt;&gt; n = 0
&gt;&gt;&gt; tick = Decimal('0.1')
&gt;&gt;&gt; for i in range(3600000): n += tick ... 
&gt;&gt;&gt; n
Decimal('360000.0')
&gt;&gt;&gt; Decimal(1) / Decimal(7)
Decimal('0.1428571428571428571428571429')
&gt;&gt;&gt; getcontext().prec = 50
&gt;&gt;&gt; Decimal(1) / Decimal(7)
Decimal('0.14285714285714285714285714285714285714285714285714')

And, yes, I know that Decimal in Python 2.6/3.1 is slow.
Will be faster in 2.7/3.2.
And there are similar libraries in Java and other languages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939531</id>
	<title>Why Slashdot sucks at writing headlines</title>
	<author>mbeckman</author>
	<datestamp>1257012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computers are just dandy at math, thank you. Some programmers aren't so hot, but they can be trained. Slashdot, on the other hand, continues to generate gratuitous inflammatory headlines. Training does not appear to be effective.

As others have pointed out, abusing a computer does not make the computer "sucky", anymore than abusing English makes it suck at expressing thoughts concisely. Slashdot consistently abuses its audience with misleading and downright false headlines, such as this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers are just dandy at math , thank you .
Some programmers are n't so hot , but they can be trained .
Slashdot , on the other hand , continues to generate gratuitous inflammatory headlines .
Training does not appear to be effective .
As others have pointed out , abusing a computer does not make the computer " sucky " , anymore than abusing English makes it suck at expressing thoughts concisely .
Slashdot consistently abuses its audience with misleading and downright false headlines , such as this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers are just dandy at math, thank you.
Some programmers aren't so hot, but they can be trained.
Slashdot, on the other hand, continues to generate gratuitous inflammatory headlines.
Training does not appear to be effective.
As others have pointed out, abusing a computer does not make the computer "sucky", anymore than abusing English makes it suck at expressing thoughts concisely.
Slashdot consistently abuses its audience with misleading and downright false headlines, such as this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939189</id>
	<title>Stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computers don't make mistakes. Programmers do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers do n't make mistakes .
Programmers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers don't make mistakes.
Programmers do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936983</id>
	<title>Actually computers don't suck at math.</title>
	<author>DJGrahamJ</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just throwing that out there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throwing that out there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throwing that out there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29953560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29954794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0525203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939313
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933951
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935419
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934905
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935509
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941003
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941111
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936925
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935621
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934775
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935491
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936519
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934117
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941613
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934657
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29953560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29941889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29938213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933725
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29937149
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29939395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29934055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29954794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29935529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29933865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0525203.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0525203.29936097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
