<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_1622218</id>
	<title>IT Snake Oil &mdash; Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"InfoWorld's Dan Tynan surveys <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/print/98248">six 'transformational' tech-panacea sales pitches</a> that have left egg on at least some IT department faces. Billed with legendary promises, each of the six technologies &mdash; five old, one new &mdash; has earned the dubious distinction of being the hype king of its respective era, falling far short of legendary promises. Consultant greed, analyst oversight, <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/dirty-vendor-tricks-909">dirty vendor tricks</a> &mdash; 'the one thing you can count on in the land of IT is a slick vendor presentation and a whole lot of hype. Eras shift, technologies change, but the sales pitch always sounds eerily familiar. In virtually every decade there's at least one transformational technology that promises to revolutionize the enterprise, slash operational costs, reduce capital expenditures, align your IT initiatives with your core business practices, boost employee productivity, and leave your breath clean and minty fresh.' Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown."</i>  What other horrible hype stories do some of our seasoned vets have?</htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Dan Tynan surveys six 'transformational ' tech-panacea sales pitches that have left egg on at least some IT department faces .
Billed with legendary promises , each of the six technologies    five old , one new    has earned the dubious distinction of being the hype king of its respective era , falling far short of legendary promises .
Consultant greed , analyst oversight , dirty vendor tricks    'the one thing you can count on in the land of IT is a slick vendor presentation and a whole lot of hype .
Eras shift , technologies change , but the sales pitch always sounds eerily familiar .
In virtually every decade there 's at least one transformational technology that promises to revolutionize the enterprise , slash operational costs , reduce capital expenditures , align your IT initiatives with your core business practices , boost employee productivity , and leave your breath clean and minty fresh .
' Today , cloud computing , virtualization , and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown .
" What other horrible hype stories do some of our seasoned vets have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Dan Tynan surveys six 'transformational' tech-panacea sales pitches that have left egg on at least some IT department faces.
Billed with legendary promises, each of the six technologies — five old, one new — has earned the dubious distinction of being the hype king of its respective era, falling far short of legendary promises.
Consultant greed, analyst oversight, dirty vendor tricks — 'the one thing you can count on in the land of IT is a slick vendor presentation and a whole lot of hype.
Eras shift, technologies change, but the sales pitch always sounds eerily familiar.
In virtually every decade there's at least one transformational technology that promises to revolutionize the enterprise, slash operational costs, reduce capital expenditures, align your IT initiatives with your core business practices, boost employee productivity, and leave your breath clean and minty fresh.
' Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown.
"  What other horrible hype stories do some of our seasoned vets have?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954620</id>
	<title>This must be a joke.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257154680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how technologies that are still being developed can be considered having "gone bunk." AI? Cloud computing? Virtualization? Come on, is this a joke? (Granted I think [and hope!] cloud computing is going to eventually fall flat on its miserable face.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how technologies that are still being developed can be considered having " gone bunk .
" AI ?
Cloud computing ?
Virtualization ? Come on , is this a joke ?
( Granted I think [ and hope !
] cloud computing is going to eventually fall flat on its miserable face .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how technologies that are still being developed can be considered having "gone bunk.
" AI?
Cloud computing?
Virtualization? Come on, is this a joke?
(Granted I think [and hope!
] cloud computing is going to eventually fall flat on its miserable face.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953480</id>
	<title>ERP is snake oil?</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1257193020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny the bit about ERP software. Essentially they say that ERP is not as good as people expected, but once you apply some Business Intelligence solutions you'll be sorted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny the bit about ERP software .
Essentially they say that ERP is not as good as people expected , but once you apply some Business Intelligence solutions you 'll be sorted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny the bit about ERP software.
Essentially they say that ERP is not as good as people expected, but once you apply some Business Intelligence solutions you'll be sorted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952798</id>
	<title>The Cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has vaporware all over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has vaporware all over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has vaporware all over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953670</id>
	<title>Re:Tech cure-all missing option: emacs</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1257193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually this is false. Emacs is the only thing computer-related that doesn't seriously aggravate my RSI (including console controllers, mice, and using anything else to do software development. I haven't used a tablet PC yet, but things don't look promising.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this is false .
Emacs is the only thing computer-related that does n't seriously aggravate my RSI ( including console controllers , mice , and using anything else to do software development .
I have n't used a tablet PC yet , but things do n't look promising .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this is false.
Emacs is the only thing computer-related that doesn't seriously aggravate my RSI (including console controllers, mice, and using anything else to do software development.
I haven't used a tablet PC yet, but things don't look promising.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960388</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ERP could probably work, but not as a packaged system. Instead, it would have to evolve into place much like the existing business processes did. It would start as a series of smaller systems at the departmental level but designed ti integrate at some point and then finally converge. This is not a job for a big ERP vendor, they will be too anxious to sell pre-packaged solutions and wag the dog by changing the whole business to fit the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ERP could probably work , but not as a packaged system .
Instead , it would have to evolve into place much like the existing business processes did .
It would start as a series of smaller systems at the departmental level but designed ti integrate at some point and then finally converge .
This is not a job for a big ERP vendor , they will be too anxious to sell pre-packaged solutions and wag the dog by changing the whole business to fit the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ERP could probably work, but not as a packaged system.
Instead, it would have to evolve into place much like the existing business processes did.
It would start as a series of smaller systems at the departmental level but designed ti integrate at some point and then finally converge.
This is not a job for a big ERP vendor, they will be too anxious to sell pre-packaged solutions and wag the dog by changing the whole business to fit the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024</id>
	<title>The crazy hottie</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1257190920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena. I won't even name the worst offenders, although the worst started with the word cable. They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds, put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses, usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches. <br> <br>
It was like watching the cast of a porn film come visit. Complete with the sleazebag regional manager, some of them even had gold chains on. Pimps up, big daddy!<br> <br>
They would laugh at whatever the customer said wildly, even if it wasn't really funny. The girls would bat their eyelashes and drop pencils. It was so ridiculous it was funny, it was like a real life comedy show skit. <br> <br>
I wonder how much skimming went on in those days. Bogus purchase orders, fake invoices. Slap and tickle. The WORST was if your company had no money to afford any of the infratsructure and the networking company would get their "capital finance" team involved. Some really seedy slimy stuff went down in the dot-com boom. And not just down pantlegs, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena .
I wo n't even name the worst offenders , although the worst started with the word cable .
They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds , put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses , usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches .
It was like watching the cast of a porn film come visit .
Complete with the sleazebag regional manager , some of them even had gold chains on .
Pimps up , big daddy !
They would laugh at whatever the customer said wildly , even if it was n't really funny .
The girls would bat their eyelashes and drop pencils .
It was so ridiculous it was funny , it was like a real life comedy show skit .
I wonder how much skimming went on in those days .
Bogus purchase orders , fake invoices .
Slap and tickle .
The WORST was if your company had no money to afford any of the infratsructure and the networking company would get their " capital finance " team involved .
Some really seedy slimy stuff went down in the dot-com boom .
And not just down pantlegs , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena.
I won't even name the worst offenders, although the worst started with the word cable.
They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds, put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses, usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches.
It was like watching the cast of a porn film come visit.
Complete with the sleazebag regional manager, some of them even had gold chains on.
Pimps up, big daddy!
They would laugh at whatever the customer said wildly, even if it wasn't really funny.
The girls would bat their eyelashes and drop pencils.
It was so ridiculous it was funny, it was like a real life comedy show skit.
I wonder how much skimming went on in those days.
Bogus purchase orders, fake invoices.
Slap and tickle.
The WORST was if your company had no money to afford any of the infratsructure and the networking company would get their "capital finance" team involved.
Some really seedy slimy stuff went down in the dot-com boom.
And not just down pantlegs, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954336</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>cbreaker</author>
	<datestamp>1257153360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers"<br><br>Not true, about the "Only works for large companies."   Sure, I'd never sell a VM system to a company with "a couple of servers" (meaning two) but I will sell it to a small company with 10 servers.<br><br>Virtualization isn't that expensive.    You can go VMware (more expensive but nice) or Xen (Much cheaper and still nice) or a turnkey solution like Virtual Iron (based on Xen.)   Either way, you can consolidate a mish-mash of servers down to two new systems, get better performance, and with things like iSCSI and NFS available on very inexpensive platforms (Windows Storage Server, Linux, small appliances, etc) you can enable advanced features such as fault tolerance and load balancing with nominal costs.<br><br>For the same price, or less, than replacing all of your old crap servers with new ones, you could build out a nice little VM system and gain so many advantages.   Think of the single admin at a small company tasked with upgrading some shoddy (but VERY IMPORTANT) software app tailored to their specific business.    Snapshot.  Upgrade.  Failed?   Undo.   Phew!  No more 4AM support runs.   Clone the machine, try it on a test with support on the phone during the day.<br><br>These are things any company can have, big or small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" because virtualization only works for large companies with many , many servers , yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers " Not true , about the " Only works for large companies .
" Sure , I 'd never sell a VM system to a company with " a couple of servers " ( meaning two ) but I will sell it to a small company with 10 servers.Virtualization is n't that expensive .
You can go VMware ( more expensive but nice ) or Xen ( Much cheaper and still nice ) or a turnkey solution like Virtual Iron ( based on Xen .
) Either way , you can consolidate a mish-mash of servers down to two new systems , get better performance , and with things like iSCSI and NFS available on very inexpensive platforms ( Windows Storage Server , Linux , small appliances , etc ) you can enable advanced features such as fault tolerance and load balancing with nominal costs.For the same price , or less , than replacing all of your old crap servers with new ones , you could build out a nice little VM system and gain so many advantages .
Think of the single admin at a small company tasked with upgrading some shoddy ( but VERY IMPORTANT ) software app tailored to their specific business .
Snapshot. Upgrade .
Failed ? Undo .
Phew ! No more 4AM support runs .
Clone the machine , try it on a test with support on the phone during the day.These are things any company can have , big or small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers"Not true, about the "Only works for large companies.
"   Sure, I'd never sell a VM system to a company with "a couple of servers" (meaning two) but I will sell it to a small company with 10 servers.Virtualization isn't that expensive.
You can go VMware (more expensive but nice) or Xen (Much cheaper and still nice) or a turnkey solution like Virtual Iron (based on Xen.
)   Either way, you can consolidate a mish-mash of servers down to two new systems, get better performance, and with things like iSCSI and NFS available on very inexpensive platforms (Windows Storage Server, Linux, small appliances, etc) you can enable advanced features such as fault tolerance and load balancing with nominal costs.For the same price, or less, than replacing all of your old crap servers with new ones, you could build out a nice little VM system and gain so many advantages.
Think of the single admin at a small company tasked with upgrading some shoddy (but VERY IMPORTANT) software app tailored to their specific business.
Snapshot.  Upgrade.
Failed?   Undo.
Phew!  No more 4AM support runs.
Clone the machine, try it on a test with support on the phone during the day.These are things any company can have, big or small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953946</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>cojsl</author>
	<datestamp>1257194880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>SOA - What a gold mine that one was.  Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium.  But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!</p></div><p>Thanks for a good laugh!  I couldn't remember what SOA stood for, so I looked it up.</p><p>Even the Wikipedia description for SOA could win a round of buzzword bingo <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented\_architecture" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented\_architecture</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SOA - What a gold mine that one was .
Calling it " web services " did n't command a very high premium .
But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more ! Thanks for a good laugh !
I could n't remember what SOA stood for , so I looked it up.Even the Wikipedia description for SOA could win a round of buzzword bingo http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented \ _architecture [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SOA - What a gold mine that one was.
Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium.
But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!Thanks for a good laugh!
I couldn't remember what SOA stood for, so I looked it up.Even the Wikipedia description for SOA could win a round of buzzword bingo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented\_architecture [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956516</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257163740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...what is "artificial intelligence"...</p><p>Artificial intelligence is whatever it is that machines can't do yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...what is " artificial intelligence " ...Artificial intelligence is whatever it is that machines ca n't do yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...what is "artificial intelligence"...Artificial intelligence is whatever it is that machines can't do yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959514</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Rantastic</author>
	<datestamp>1257180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you have just described is virtualiztion in the hands of the typical small biz consultant: Someone who has no idea what they are doing.</p><p>The 5 to 6 servers you described could easily be run on two physical systems (for redundancy) for less than the price of 5 or 6 physical systems.</p><p>Also, just because you do not understand virtualization does not make it "a complex setup."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you have just described is virtualiztion in the hands of the typical small biz consultant : Someone who has no idea what they are doing.The 5 to 6 servers you described could easily be run on two physical systems ( for redundancy ) for less than the price of 5 or 6 physical systems.Also , just because you do not understand virtualization does not make it " a complex setup .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you have just described is virtualiztion in the hands of the typical small biz consultant: Someone who has no idea what they are doing.The 5 to 6 servers you described could easily be run on two physical systems (for redundancy) for less than the price of 5 or 6 physical systems.Also, just because you do not understand virtualization does not make it "a complex setup.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955748</id>
	<title>Re:Expert systems</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How dare you replace the inexpensive Bangalore X-ray technician with a machine! Please, have a heart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How dare you replace the inexpensive Bangalore X-ray technician with a machine !
Please , have a heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dare you replace the inexpensive Bangalore X-ray technician with a machine!
Please, have a heart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957904</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out. This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.</p></div><p>The thing with a lot of these ideas like Agile Computing, Extreme Programming, Pair-Programming, is that most of their best ideas got integrated into mainstream project management.  In the 80s and 70s there wasn't much project management, or even code organization, and any style of project management was better; if your normal management method is to tell your programmers "get to work" of course extreme programming will work better.<br> <br>
On the other hand none of those fads were perfect, and all of them had weird problems mixed in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out .
This is your PC , this is your PC in spin class.The thing with a lot of these ideas like Agile Computing , Extreme Programming , Pair-Programming , is that most of their best ideas got integrated into mainstream project management .
In the 80s and 70s there was n't much project management , or even code organization , and any style of project management was better ; if your normal management method is to tell your programmers " get to work " of course extreme programming will work better .
On the other hand none of those fads were perfect , and all of them had weird problems mixed in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out.
This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.The thing with a lot of these ideas like Agile Computing, Extreme Programming, Pair-Programming, is that most of their best ideas got integrated into mainstream project management.
In the 80s and 70s there wasn't much project management, or even code organization, and any style of project management was better; if your normal management method is to tell your programmers "get to work" of course extreme programming will work better.
On the other hand none of those fads were perfect, and all of them had weird problems mixed in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953872</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1257194640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that, if it isn't that, then what is "artificial intelligence", rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms?</p></div><p>Exactly. "Artificial intelligence" seems to serve various purposes&mdash;at best vacuous and at worst deceptive. How many millions of dollars have academicians raked in for various projects that involve research into "artificial intelligence"?
</p><p>What makes all this silliness sustainable is the philosophical fog that surrounds words such as "intelligence" and "thinking". Such words easily slip their moorings in our common language, and acquire some very strange uses. Yet, because they are recognizably legitimate words that do have perfectly legitimate uses, it is all too easy to fool people into uncritical acceptance of claims that, when analyzed, make little sense.</p><p>
When someone talks to me about creating "artificial intelligence", I never deny that this is possible. I can't deny a claim that I don't clearly understand. To evaluate a claim, I first need clarification of what is being asserted. In this case, it's as though someone were talking about the discovery of "artificial chenya". To even understand that claim, I have to know what <em>natural</em> chenya might be. So tell me, what is "natural intelligence"? You're going to have to be very clear about that before you can start writing the requirements document for your project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that , if it is n't that , then what is " artificial intelligence " , rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms ? Exactly .
" Artificial intelligence " seems to serve various purposes    at best vacuous and at worst deceptive .
How many millions of dollars have academicians raked in for various projects that involve research into " artificial intelligence " ?
What makes all this silliness sustainable is the philosophical fog that surrounds words such as " intelligence " and " thinking " .
Such words easily slip their moorings in our common language , and acquire some very strange uses .
Yet , because they are recognizably legitimate words that do have perfectly legitimate uses , it is all too easy to fool people into uncritical acceptance of claims that , when analyzed , make little sense .
When someone talks to me about creating " artificial intelligence " , I never deny that this is possible .
I ca n't deny a claim that I do n't clearly understand .
To evaluate a claim , I first need clarification of what is being asserted .
In this case , it 's as though someone were talking about the discovery of " artificial chenya " .
To even understand that claim , I have to know what natural chenya might be .
So tell me , what is " natural intelligence " ?
You 're going to have to be very clear about that before you can start writing the requirements document for your project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that, if it isn't that, then what is "artificial intelligence", rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms?Exactly.
"Artificial intelligence" seems to serve various purposes—at best vacuous and at worst deceptive.
How many millions of dollars have academicians raked in for various projects that involve research into "artificial intelligence"?
What makes all this silliness sustainable is the philosophical fog that surrounds words such as "intelligence" and "thinking".
Such words easily slip their moorings in our common language, and acquire some very strange uses.
Yet, because they are recognizably legitimate words that do have perfectly legitimate uses, it is all too easy to fool people into uncritical acceptance of claims that, when analyzed, make little sense.
When someone talks to me about creating "artificial intelligence", I never deny that this is possible.
I can't deny a claim that I don't clearly understand.
To evaluate a claim, I first need clarification of what is being asserted.
In this case, it's as though someone were talking about the discovery of "artificial chenya".
To even understand that claim, I have to know what natural chenya might be.
So tell me, what is "natural intelligence"?
You're going to have to be very clear about that before you can start writing the requirements document for your project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956584</id>
	<title>What about "Open Source"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257164100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By all measures, open source has not met anything CLOSE to what the hype had us believing.  There does not exist a single open source tool or product that owns majority market share against its closed source competitors.  We are CONSTANTLY told that open source is a "better way" to produce software, but what evidence exists to back this claim?  Linux sucks.  The GIMP sucks.  Firefox pales in comparison to Opera or even Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By all measures , open source has not met anything CLOSE to what the hype had us believing .
There does not exist a single open source tool or product that owns majority market share against its closed source competitors .
We are CONSTANTLY told that open source is a " better way " to produce software , but what evidence exists to back this claim ?
Linux sucks .
The GIMP sucks .
Firefox pales in comparison to Opera or even Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By all measures, open source has not met anything CLOSE to what the hype had us believing.
There does not exist a single open source tool or product that owns majority market share against its closed source competitors.
We are CONSTANTLY told that open source is a "better way" to produce software, but what evidence exists to back this claim?
Linux sucks.
The GIMP sucks.
Firefox pales in comparison to Opera or even Safari.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953112</id>
	<title>Re:ERP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no on ERP.</p><p>Clearly you are correct that any large company and surely manufactures are using some ERP (or MRP/DRP). In specific verticals and with realistic expectations many roll-outs have been successful and with demonstrable returns.</p><p>But the idea of ERP from a monolithic vendor with an all-pervasive solution for all your business lines and processes and an implementation that was going to reinvent your company and change all those corporate structures that have remained up-till-now resistant to change was the joke.</p><p>ERP as just another software solution with constraints is a success.</p><p>ERP as new-age religion is a failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no on ERP.Clearly you are correct that any large company and surely manufactures are using some ERP ( or MRP/DRP ) .
In specific verticals and with realistic expectations many roll-outs have been successful and with demonstrable returns.But the idea of ERP from a monolithic vendor with an all-pervasive solution for all your business lines and processes and an implementation that was going to reinvent your company and change all those corporate structures that have remained up-till-now resistant to change was the joke.ERP as just another software solution with constraints is a success.ERP as new-age religion is a failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no on ERP.Clearly you are correct that any large company and surely manufactures are using some ERP (or MRP/DRP).
In specific verticals and with realistic expectations many roll-outs have been successful and with demonstrable returns.But the idea of ERP from a monolithic vendor with an all-pervasive solution for all your business lines and processes and an implementation that was going to reinvent your company and change all those corporate structures that have remained up-till-now resistant to change was the joke.ERP as just another software solution with constraints is a success.ERP as new-age religion is a failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962342</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>SkunkPussy</author>
	<datestamp>1257256620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>prolog is certainly common in academia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>prolog is certainly common in academia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>prolog is certainly common in academia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961192</id>
	<title>Re:Expert systems</title>
	<author>Imsdal</author>
	<datestamp>1257241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really patients that dislike the medical expert systems? I'd bet good money it's the doctors who dislike them. If we are talking about systems that the patients use themselves, you are surely right. These systems are doomed to fail, as it actually takes knowledge and experience to answer most medical questions properly. But systems used by doctors to aid in coming up with a diagnosis are quite successful and quite detested by doctors correctly understanding that their market value just tanked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really patients that dislike the medical expert systems ?
I 'd bet good money it 's the doctors who dislike them .
If we are talking about systems that the patients use themselves , you are surely right .
These systems are doomed to fail , as it actually takes knowledge and experience to answer most medical questions properly .
But systems used by doctors to aid in coming up with a diagnosis are quite successful and quite detested by doctors correctly understanding that their market value just tanked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really patients that dislike the medical expert systems?
I'd bet good money it's the doctors who dislike them.
If we are talking about systems that the patients use themselves, you are surely right.
These systems are doomed to fail, as it actually takes knowledge and experience to answer most medical questions properly.
But systems used by doctors to aid in coming up with a diagnosis are quite successful and quite detested by doctors correctly understanding that their market value just tanked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928</id>
	<title>Expert systems</title>
	<author>michael\_cain</author>
	<datestamp>1257190500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Within limits, expert systems seem to work reasonably well. Properly-trained software that examines x-ray images has been reported to have better accuracy than humans at diagnosing specific problems.  The literature seems to suggest that expert systems for medical case diagnosis is more accurate than doctors and nurses, especially tired doctors and nurses.  OTOH, patients have an intense dislike of such systems, particularly the diagnosis software, since it can seem like an arbitrary game of "20 Questions".  Of course, these are tools that help the experts do their job better, not replacements for the expert people themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Within limits , expert systems seem to work reasonably well .
Properly-trained software that examines x-ray images has been reported to have better accuracy than humans at diagnosing specific problems .
The literature seems to suggest that expert systems for medical case diagnosis is more accurate than doctors and nurses , especially tired doctors and nurses .
OTOH , patients have an intense dislike of such systems , particularly the diagnosis software , since it can seem like an arbitrary game of " 20 Questions " .
Of course , these are tools that help the experts do their job better , not replacements for the expert people themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within limits, expert systems seem to work reasonably well.
Properly-trained software that examines x-ray images has been reported to have better accuracy than humans at diagnosing specific problems.
The literature seems to suggest that expert systems for medical case diagnosis is more accurate than doctors and nurses, especially tired doctors and nurses.
OTOH, patients have an intense dislike of such systems, particularly the diagnosis software, since it can seem like an arbitrary game of "20 Questions".
Of course, these are tools that help the experts do their job better, not replacements for the expert people themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136</id>
	<title>Tech cure-all missing option: emacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently it cures everything but RSI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently it cures everything but RSI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently it cures everything but RSI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954750</id>
	<title>Advanced Technology saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In honor of Arthur C. Clarke's famous words, I have a button which almost got me fired at work. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In honor of Arthur C. Clarke 's famous words , I have a button which almost got me fired at work .
" Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In honor of Arthur C. Clarke's famous words, I have a button which almost got me fired at work.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961802</id>
	<title>Tablet PCs definitely</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1257250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see the potential in cloud computing, although it isn't as huge as some would have us believe, and virtualisation is very useful technology for many purposes - I can see that going a long way, though it has many limitations too. But the tablet PC? I honestly can't see what I would use one for; it seems to combine the worst features of a notebook PC - general clunkiness, short battery life, easily breakable - with the disadvantages of pen and paper. Both are very valuable technologies on their own, but combining them is a bit like combining a pneumatic hammer with a nose-hair trimmer. It's not going to give you the best of both worlds, I suspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the potential in cloud computing , although it is n't as huge as some would have us believe , and virtualisation is very useful technology for many purposes - I can see that going a long way , though it has many limitations too .
But the tablet PC ?
I honestly ca n't see what I would use one for ; it seems to combine the worst features of a notebook PC - general clunkiness , short battery life , easily breakable - with the disadvantages of pen and paper .
Both are very valuable technologies on their own , but combining them is a bit like combining a pneumatic hammer with a nose-hair trimmer .
It 's not going to give you the best of both worlds , I suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the potential in cloud computing, although it isn't as huge as some would have us believe, and virtualisation is very useful technology for many purposes - I can see that going a long way, though it has many limitations too.
But the tablet PC?
I honestly can't see what I would use one for; it seems to combine the worst features of a notebook PC - general clunkiness, short battery life, easily breakable - with the disadvantages of pen and paper.
Both are very valuable technologies on their own, but combining them is a bit like combining a pneumatic hammer with a nose-hair trimmer.
It's not going to give you the best of both worlds, I suspect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966578</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1257277920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future</p></div><p>You realize that in order to have an audit trail, certain data must be immutable after it's been recorded, right?  Welcome to ERP.  You've taken two steps.  One is wrong, and the other depends on the first.  Then there are the issues about legal requirements (ERP includes accounting data, contract information, etc.) and simply maintaining consistent data between yourself and your business partners that the idea of being able to edit anything, any time, or even close to it makes it difficult for me not to smirk.</p><p>This leads to one of my (many) quotes:  If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureYou realize that in order to have an audit trail , certain data must be immutable after it 's been recorded , right ?
Welcome to ERP .
You 've taken two steps .
One is wrong , and the other depends on the first .
Then there are the issues about legal requirements ( ERP includes accounting data , contract information , etc .
) and simply maintaining consistent data between yourself and your business partners that the idea of being able to edit anything , any time , or even close to it makes it difficult for me not to smirk.This leads to one of my ( many ) quotes : If it was easy , everyone would be doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureYou realize that in order to have an audit trail, certain data must be immutable after it's been recorded, right?
Welcome to ERP.
You've taken two steps.
One is wrong, and the other depends on the first.
Then there are the issues about legal requirements (ERP includes accounting data, contract information, etc.
) and simply maintaining consistent data between yourself and your business partners that the idea of being able to edit anything, any time, or even close to it makes it difficult for me not to smirk.This leads to one of my (many) quotes:  If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954626</id>
	<title>what is this crap?</title>
	<author>uwnav</author>
	<datestamp>1257154740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for one, this is not news. And not in terms of "we already knew this", in terms of this is clearly this misguided opinion of an individual and doesn't provide any new factual information <br> <br>
I'm tired of reading articles about something dumb somebody wrote in a tech magazine, and everyone here going nerdrage on it</htmltext>
<tokenext>for one , this is not news .
And not in terms of " we already knew this " , in terms of this is clearly this misguided opinion of an individual and does n't provide any new factual information I 'm tired of reading articles about something dumb somebody wrote in a tech magazine , and everyone here going nerdrage on it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for one, this is not news.
And not in terms of "we already knew this", in terms of this is clearly this misguided opinion of an individual and doesn't provide any new factual information  
I'm tired of reading articles about something dumb somebody wrote in a tech magazine, and everyone here going nerdrage on it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953006</id>
	<title>Fake quote in technology #1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quote "Some day we will build a thinking machine..." which TFA attributes to Thinking Machines corp is bogus, I think. Google turns up only a handful of hits, and the happy times I had with C*/PRISM on a CM-5 left me with the distinct impression that the people at Thinking Machines definitely had their heads screwed on and switched on.</p><p>Did TFA just make this quote up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quote " Some day we will build a thinking machine... " which TFA attributes to Thinking Machines corp is bogus , I think .
Google turns up only a handful of hits , and the happy times I had with C * /PRISM on a CM-5 left me with the distinct impression that the people at Thinking Machines definitely had their heads screwed on and switched on.Did TFA just make this quote up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quote "Some day we will build a thinking machine..." which TFA attributes to Thinking Machines corp is bogus, I think.
Google turns up only a handful of hits, and the happy times I had with C*/PRISM on a CM-5 left me with the distinct impression that the people at Thinking Machines definitely had their heads screwed on and switched on.Did TFA just make this quote up?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953758</id>
	<title>In Defense of thin client, esp. for Mac.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thin clients for Windows Machines don't make much sense in many environments. Thin clients for Macs do. There is one Mac terminal server (http://www.aquaconnect.net) which allows thin clients or Windows machines to run on a Mac server.</p><p>The reason this makes sense is the price of a Mac as compared with a thin client or PC.</p><p>Thin clients (even for Windows) make sense in secure environments and environments that have great turnover (ie. A computer lab,  internet caffe). A secure environment is obvious, the data is on the server and does not leave. In a high turnover environment makes administration easier, where you can wipe and restore the environment, though there are some other tools to do that, just not as convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thin clients for Windows Machines do n't make much sense in many environments .
Thin clients for Macs do .
There is one Mac terminal server ( http : //www.aquaconnect.net ) which allows thin clients or Windows machines to run on a Mac server.The reason this makes sense is the price of a Mac as compared with a thin client or PC.Thin clients ( even for Windows ) make sense in secure environments and environments that have great turnover ( ie .
A computer lab , internet caffe ) .
A secure environment is obvious , the data is on the server and does not leave .
In a high turnover environment makes administration easier , where you can wipe and restore the environment , though there are some other tools to do that , just not as convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thin clients for Windows Machines don't make much sense in many environments.
Thin clients for Macs do.
There is one Mac terminal server (http://www.aquaconnect.net) which allows thin clients or Windows machines to run on a Mac server.The reason this makes sense is the price of a Mac as compared with a thin client or PC.Thin clients (even for Windows) make sense in secure environments and environments that have great turnover (ie.
A computer lab,  internet caffe).
A secure environment is obvious, the data is on the server and does not leave.
In a high turnover environment makes administration easier, where you can wipe and restore the environment, though there are some other tools to do that, just not as convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956396</id>
	<title>Re:Tech cure-all missing option: emacs</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Apparently [emacs] cures everything but RSI.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sure RMS is working on a voice recognition extension.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently [ emacs ] cures everything but RSI.I 'm sure RMS is working on a voice recognition extension .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apparently [emacs] cures everything but RSI.I'm sure RMS is working on a voice recognition extension.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955396</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you also complain when airplanes don't flap their wings? (Sci-fi's Ornithopters excempted of course.)</p><p>Knowledge systems/rules engines and neural networks can deduce answers, that is sufficient to be labeled "intelligence" in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you also complain when airplanes do n't flap their wings ?
( Sci-fi 's Ornithopters excempted of course .
) Knowledge systems/rules engines and neural networks can deduce answers , that is sufficient to be labeled " intelligence " in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you also complain when airplanes don't flap their wings?
(Sci-fi's Ornithopters excempted of course.
)Knowledge systems/rules engines and neural networks can deduce answers, that is sufficient to be labeled "intelligence" in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961312</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is so, then the hunt for Artificial Intelligence leads us closer and closer to the realization of that "core" which makes us distinctly human. What does it mean to be a human if everything can be replicated by AI? What is everything?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is so , then the hunt for Artificial Intelligence leads us closer and closer to the realization of that " core " which makes us distinctly human .
What does it mean to be a human if everything can be replicated by AI ?
What is everything ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is so, then the hunt for Artificial Intelligence leads us closer and closer to the realization of that "core" which makes us distinctly human.
What does it mean to be a human if everything can be replicated by AI?
What is everything?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955074</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>hemp</author>
	<datestamp>1257156960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even in the 1800's they had chickens that could play tic-tac-toe and win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the 1800 's they had chickens that could play tic-tac-toe and win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the 1800's they had chickens that could play tic-tac-toe and win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952866</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257190260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't think this stuff can simply be called "snake oil".  ERP systems are in use.  They're not a cure-all, but failing to fix every problem doesn't make a thing useless.  The current usefulness of "artificial intelligence" depends on how you define it.  There are some fairly complex statistical analysis systems that are already pretty useful.  Full on AI just doesn't exist yet, and we can't even quite agree on what it would be, but it would likely have some use if we ever made it.
</p><p>Virtualization is useful and has its place, as does "cloud computing" (which seems to mean different things to different people, but regardless it has its uses).
</p><p>I guess a lot of these things are over-hyped and they ideas have been sold to people as being better and more trouble-free than they are in reality.  But then, so is everything.  For example, Windows 7, Karmic Koala, and Snow Leopard have all failed to solve all of my computing problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't think this stuff can simply be called " snake oil " .
ERP systems are in use .
They 're not a cure-all , but failing to fix every problem does n't make a thing useless .
The current usefulness of " artificial intelligence " depends on how you define it .
There are some fairly complex statistical analysis systems that are already pretty useful .
Full on AI just does n't exist yet , and we ca n't even quite agree on what it would be , but it would likely have some use if we ever made it .
Virtualization is useful and has its place , as does " cloud computing " ( which seems to mean different things to different people , but regardless it has its uses ) .
I guess a lot of these things are over-hyped and they ideas have been sold to people as being better and more trouble-free than they are in reality .
But then , so is everything .
For example , Windows 7 , Karmic Koala , and Snow Leopard have all failed to solve all of my computing problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't think this stuff can simply be called "snake oil".
ERP systems are in use.
They're not a cure-all, but failing to fix every problem doesn't make a thing useless.
The current usefulness of "artificial intelligence" depends on how you define it.
There are some fairly complex statistical analysis systems that are already pretty useful.
Full on AI just doesn't exist yet, and we can't even quite agree on what it would be, but it would likely have some use if we ever made it.
Virtualization is useful and has its place, as does "cloud computing" (which seems to mean different things to different people, but regardless it has its uses).
I guess a lot of these things are over-hyped and they ideas have been sold to people as being better and more trouble-free than they are in reality.
But then, so is everything.
For example, Windows 7, Karmic Koala, and Snow Leopard have all failed to solve all of my computing problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953980</id>
	<title>TLO</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257195060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a CASE tool called <a href="http://teblog.typepad.com/david\_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html" title="typepad.com">The Last One</a> [typepad.com] that was briefly hyped as making programming obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a CASE tool called The Last One [ typepad.com ] that was briefly hyped as making programming obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a CASE tool called The Last One [typepad.com] that was briefly hyped as making programming obsolete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953074</id>
	<title>Overhyped, but note quite snake oil</title>
	<author>Jyms</author>
	<datestamp>1257191160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got interested in AI in the early 90's and even then the statements made in the article were considered outrageous by people who actually knew what was going on.  I use AI on a daily basis, from OCR to speech and gesture recognition.  Even my washing machine claims to use it.  Not quite thinking for us and taking over the world, but give it some time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).
<br> <br>
Same with thin clients.  Just today I put together a proposal for three 100 seat thin client (Sunray) labs.  VDI allows us to use Solaris, multiple Linux flavors, Minix, Windows, pretty much any OS we wish at the click of a mouse.  The biggest problem is guessing what is going to happen now that Oracle is taking over, not the technology/architecture.   Yes, Windows (CE) "thin clients" suck and are not very thin, but real think clients are quite handy.
<br> <br>
A lot of these technologies were/are hopelessly over-hyped, but that is not a fault with the technology, but a problem with the idiots doing the hyping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got interested in AI in the early 90 's and even then the statements made in the article were considered outrageous by people who actually knew what was going on .
I use AI on a daily basis , from OCR to speech and gesture recognition .
Even my washing machine claims to use it .
Not quite thinking for us and taking over the world , but give it some time : ) .
Same with thin clients .
Just today I put together a proposal for three 100 seat thin client ( Sunray ) labs .
VDI allows us to use Solaris , multiple Linux flavors , Minix , Windows , pretty much any OS we wish at the click of a mouse .
The biggest problem is guessing what is going to happen now that Oracle is taking over , not the technology/architecture .
Yes , Windows ( CE ) " thin clients " suck and are not very thin , but real think clients are quite handy .
A lot of these technologies were/are hopelessly over-hyped , but that is not a fault with the technology , but a problem with the idiots doing the hyping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got interested in AI in the early 90's and even then the statements made in the article were considered outrageous by people who actually knew what was going on.
I use AI on a daily basis, from OCR to speech and gesture recognition.
Even my washing machine claims to use it.
Not quite thinking for us and taking over the world, but give it some time :).
Same with thin clients.
Just today I put together a proposal for three 100 seat thin client (Sunray) labs.
VDI allows us to use Solaris, multiple Linux flavors, Minix, Windows, pretty much any OS we wish at the click of a mouse.
The biggest problem is guessing what is going to happen now that Oracle is taking over, not the technology/architecture.
Yes, Windows (CE) "thin clients" suck and are not very thin, but real think clients are quite handy.
A lot of these technologies were/are hopelessly over-hyped, but that is not a fault with the technology, but a problem with the idiots doing the hyping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953348</id>
	<title>A failure of terminology, not of technology</title>
	<author>camionbleu</author>
	<datestamp>1257192360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the early 90s (pre-web), I worked on two of the technologies mentioned in the article. First, thin clients. I worked on a system where we had a thin user interface layer (two versions: Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager) talking to a powerful server backend that was doing database lookups and heavy number crunching. It worked well, but this type of architecture morphed into web applications in the mid-90s, and people stopped talking about "thin clients". However, a browser talking to an e-commerce backend or pretty much any other type of web app is precisely that: a thin client. The article is quite foolish to say that thin clients are "making a bit of a comeback". In fact, they have quietly taken over.</p><p>Secondly, AI. I worked on an expert system in the late 80s and early 90s that worked very well (and had modest commercial success). To this day, there are plenty of rule-based systems and neural networks in use in real-world situations such as decision support. But the term "artificial intelligence" made non-technical people overestimate what was possible at the time. Looking back, it was a term that encouraged people to overestimate what was possible. However, the set of technologies that were commonly referred to as AI have not generally failed -- only the term itself, "artifical intelligence", has fallen out of favour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the early 90s ( pre-web ) , I worked on two of the technologies mentioned in the article .
First , thin clients .
I worked on a system where we had a thin user interface layer ( two versions : Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager ) talking to a powerful server backend that was doing database lookups and heavy number crunching .
It worked well , but this type of architecture morphed into web applications in the mid-90s , and people stopped talking about " thin clients " .
However , a browser talking to an e-commerce backend or pretty much any other type of web app is precisely that : a thin client .
The article is quite foolish to say that thin clients are " making a bit of a comeback " .
In fact , they have quietly taken over.Secondly , AI .
I worked on an expert system in the late 80s and early 90s that worked very well ( and had modest commercial success ) .
To this day , there are plenty of rule-based systems and neural networks in use in real-world situations such as decision support .
But the term " artificial intelligence " made non-technical people overestimate what was possible at the time .
Looking back , it was a term that encouraged people to overestimate what was possible .
However , the set of technologies that were commonly referred to as AI have not generally failed -- only the term itself , " artifical intelligence " , has fallen out of favour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the early 90s (pre-web), I worked on two of the technologies mentioned in the article.
First, thin clients.
I worked on a system where we had a thin user interface layer (two versions: Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager) talking to a powerful server backend that was doing database lookups and heavy number crunching.
It worked well, but this type of architecture morphed into web applications in the mid-90s, and people stopped talking about "thin clients".
However, a browser talking to an e-commerce backend or pretty much any other type of web app is precisely that: a thin client.
The article is quite foolish to say that thin clients are "making a bit of a comeback".
In fact, they have quietly taken over.Secondly, AI.
I worked on an expert system in the late 80s and early 90s that worked very well (and had modest commercial success).
To this day, there are plenty of rule-based systems and neural networks in use in real-world situations such as decision support.
But the term "artificial intelligence" made non-technical people overestimate what was possible at the time.
Looking back, it was a term that encouraged people to overestimate what was possible.
However, the set of technologies that were commonly referred to as AI have not generally failed -- only the term itself, "artifical intelligence", has fallen out of favour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961594</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1257248040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtualization only works well for configurations that no sane person would put into a production use in the first place.</p><p>That is:</p><p>1. Sandboxes for development and testing (because they are SUPPOSED to be constantly created, destroyed, reproduced and reconfigured).<br>2. Anything that runs on Microsoft Windows (because it's an OS that runs BETTER when hypervisor is used as a crutch for everything its crappy kernel can't do properly, and Virtual Machine management has to do everything Virtual Memory or filesystem does not).</p><p>Anything that is not a throwaway development environment or Windows box, can be configured on a general-purpose Unix-like server with half-decent package management -- sometimes with chroot jail or other compartmentalized environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization only works well for configurations that no sane person would put into a production use in the first place.That is : 1 .
Sandboxes for development and testing ( because they are SUPPOSED to be constantly created , destroyed , reproduced and reconfigured ) .2 .
Anything that runs on Microsoft Windows ( because it 's an OS that runs BETTER when hypervisor is used as a crutch for everything its crappy kernel ca n't do properly , and Virtual Machine management has to do everything Virtual Memory or filesystem does not ) .Anything that is not a throwaway development environment or Windows box , can be configured on a general-purpose Unix-like server with half-decent package management -- sometimes with chroot jail or other compartmentalized environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization only works well for configurations that no sane person would put into a production use in the first place.That is:1.
Sandboxes for development and testing (because they are SUPPOSED to be constantly created, destroyed, reproduced and reconfigured).2.
Anything that runs on Microsoft Windows (because it's an OS that runs BETTER when hypervisor is used as a crutch for everything its crappy kernel can't do properly, and Virtual Machine management has to do everything Virtual Memory or filesystem does not).Anything that is not a throwaway development environment or Windows box, can be configured on a general-purpose Unix-like server with half-decent package management -- sometimes with chroot jail or other compartmentalized environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>VoidEngineer</author>
	<datestamp>1257190620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been involved in a business start-up for a year or so now, I'd have to disagree. Virtualization is indispensible for QA testing. Being able to run a virtual network on a personal PC lets me design, debug, and do proof-of-concepts without requiring the investment in actual equipment.

Virtualization isn't just about hardware consolidation: it's also about application portability. Small companies have just as much need for QA testing, hardware recycling, and application portability as the large ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been involved in a business start-up for a year or so now , I 'd have to disagree .
Virtualization is indispensible for QA testing .
Being able to run a virtual network on a personal PC lets me design , debug , and do proof-of-concepts without requiring the investment in actual equipment .
Virtualization is n't just about hardware consolidation : it 's also about application portability .
Small companies have just as much need for QA testing , hardware recycling , and application portability as the large ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been involved in a business start-up for a year or so now, I'd have to disagree.
Virtualization is indispensible for QA testing.
Being able to run a virtual network on a personal PC lets me design, debug, and do proof-of-concepts without requiring the investment in actual equipment.
Virtualization isn't just about hardware consolidation: it's also about application portability.
Small companies have just as much need for QA testing, hardware recycling, and application portability as the large ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers. You should virtualize you email ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), web server, ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), source control ($1,000 by itself, give or take a little, and a couple of others. So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.</p><p>Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many , many servers , yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers .
You should virtualize you email ( $ 2,000 by itself , give or take a little ) , web server , ( $ 2,000 by itself , give or take a little ) , source control ( $ 1,000 by itself , give or take a little , and a couple of others .
So you have maybe $ 10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no , the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.Virtualization has it 's place , but only at the larger companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers.
You should virtualize you email ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), web server, ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), source control ($1,000 by itself, give or take a little, and a couple of others.
So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959652</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>tambo</author>
	<datestamp>1257181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
"As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity."
<p>

I don't think that's a fair comparison.</p><p>

"Intelligence" isn't just being able to solve a particular problem, regardless of its difficulty. If you throw the smartest chess algorithm in the world at a map, it won't be able to tell you how to get from point A to point B.</p><p>

Obviously, "intelligence" involves many of the meta-qualities of problem-solving: inductive logic and generalization, deductive logic, the development and use of heuristics, the recognition of general problems and solutions in different domains - flexibility, spontaneity, personality, predictiveness, humor, semantic language skills, self-awareness, curiosity, intellectual growth, the development of goals...</p><p>

We might be able to develop an algorithm to tackle one, or even a *few*, of these skills - but only in a narrow domain. Even our best language translators typically understand very little linguistic comprehension, and then only in a specific language or topical domain. Yet, the average five-year-old child demonstrates ALL of these capabilities.</p><p>

Even at a basic level, these skills are what we would consider "intelligence." When we have a machine that demonstrates even a very rudimentary set of these capabilities, it will be considered intelligent. The rest will just be refinement and scaling up.</p><p>

- David Stein</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer , it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence ; it 's a mere mechanical activity .
" I do n't think that 's a fair comparison .
" Intelligence " is n't just being able to solve a particular problem , regardless of its difficulty .
If you throw the smartest chess algorithm in the world at a map , it wo n't be able to tell you how to get from point A to point B . Obviously , " intelligence " involves many of the meta-qualities of problem-solving : inductive logic and generalization , deductive logic , the development and use of heuristics , the recognition of general problems and solutions in different domains - flexibility , spontaneity , personality , predictiveness , humor , semantic language skills , self-awareness , curiosity , intellectual growth , the development of goals.. . We might be able to develop an algorithm to tackle one , or even a * few * , of these skills - but only in a narrow domain .
Even our best language translators typically understand very little linguistic comprehension , and then only in a specific language or topical domain .
Yet , the average five-year-old child demonstrates ALL of these capabilities .
Even at a basic level , these skills are what we would consider " intelligence .
" When we have a machine that demonstrates even a very rudimentary set of these capabilities , it will be considered intelligent .
The rest will just be refinement and scaling up .
- David Stein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.
"


I don't think that's a fair comparison.
"Intelligence" isn't just being able to solve a particular problem, regardless of its difficulty.
If you throw the smartest chess algorithm in the world at a map, it won't be able to tell you how to get from point A to point B.

Obviously, "intelligence" involves many of the meta-qualities of problem-solving: inductive logic and generalization, deductive logic, the development and use of heuristics, the recognition of general problems and solutions in different domains - flexibility, spontaneity, personality, predictiveness, humor, semantic language skills, self-awareness, curiosity, intellectual growth, the development of goals...

We might be able to develop an algorithm to tackle one, or even a *few*, of these skills - but only in a narrow domain.
Even our best language translators typically understand very little linguistic comprehension, and then only in a specific language or topical domain.
Yet, the average five-year-old child demonstrates ALL of these capabilities.
Even at a basic level, these skills are what we would consider "intelligence.
" When we have a machine that demonstrates even a very rudimentary set of these capabilities, it will be considered intelligent.
The rest will just be refinement and scaling up.
- David Stein</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966760</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do you believe your brain is you? ie, do you believe your mind is a result of the chemical and electrical system that is the brain?</p><p>if yes, then AI is possible and in fact probable to occur. duplicate this process and you have AI, heck one could argue there is no AI only Intelligence systems. if i build an organic mind is it any less artificial or any less a mind? what if i build the same thing in silicon? or out of cogs? it doesn't matter if the calculations are done with silicon, meat, or on your fingers. if we can recreate the calculations which are midn then we can recreate the mind. ie, if the mind is material and physical (or represented with signals which are material).</p><p>if instead you think the mind is supernatural or in some way not bound to the material world then no we can not recreate the mind.</p><p>guess which point of view is supported by the evidence.....</p><p>of course that says nothing about what is PRACTICAL only what is possible. I think it is practical as well but thats only a personal oppinion of someone who has studied a great deal of computer science and the chemical and electrical behavior of the brain. a layman but an informed one at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do you believe your brain is you ?
ie , do you believe your mind is a result of the chemical and electrical system that is the brain ? if yes , then AI is possible and in fact probable to occur .
duplicate this process and you have AI , heck one could argue there is no AI only Intelligence systems .
if i build an organic mind is it any less artificial or any less a mind ?
what if i build the same thing in silicon ?
or out of cogs ?
it does n't matter if the calculations are done with silicon , meat , or on your fingers .
if we can recreate the calculations which are midn then we can recreate the mind .
ie , if the mind is material and physical ( or represented with signals which are material ) .if instead you think the mind is supernatural or in some way not bound to the material world then no we can not recreate the mind.guess which point of view is supported by the evidence.....of course that says nothing about what is PRACTICAL only what is possible .
I think it is practical as well but thats only a personal oppinion of someone who has studied a great deal of computer science and the chemical and electrical behavior of the brain .
a layman but an informed one at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you believe your brain is you?
ie, do you believe your mind is a result of the chemical and electrical system that is the brain?if yes, then AI is possible and in fact probable to occur.
duplicate this process and you have AI, heck one could argue there is no AI only Intelligence systems.
if i build an organic mind is it any less artificial or any less a mind?
what if i build the same thing in silicon?
or out of cogs?
it doesn't matter if the calculations are done with silicon, meat, or on your fingers.
if we can recreate the calculations which are midn then we can recreate the mind.
ie, if the mind is material and physical (or represented with signals which are material).if instead you think the mind is supernatural or in some way not bound to the material world then no we can not recreate the mind.guess which point of view is supported by the evidence.....of course that says nothing about what is PRACTICAL only what is possible.
I think it is practical as well but thats only a personal oppinion of someone who has studied a great deal of computer science and the chemical and electrical behavior of the brain.
a layman but an informed one at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1257190860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ERP could work if the vendors would realistically deal with GIGO.</p><p>Unless you lock down the permissions so tightly that  the system is unusable, your users will enter bad data. They'll add new entries for objects that already exist, they'll misspell the name of an object and then create a new object instead of editing the one they just created. They'll make every possible data entry error you can imagine, and plenty that you can't.</p><p>We'd see a lot more progress in business software applications if all vendors would follow two rules:</p><ol> <li>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future</li><li>Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>ERP could work if the vendors would realistically deal with GIGO.Unless you lock down the permissions so tightly that the system is unusable , your users will enter bad data .
They 'll add new entries for objects that already exist , they 'll misspell the name of an object and then create a new object instead of editing the one they just created .
They 'll make every possible data entry error you can imagine , and plenty that you ca n't.We 'd see a lot more progress in business software applications if all vendors would follow two rules : Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureAny interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ERP could work if the vendors would realistically deal with GIGO.Unless you lock down the permissions so tightly that  the system is unusable, your users will enter bad data.
They'll add new entries for objects that already exist, they'll misspell the name of an object and then create a new object instead of editing the one they just created.
They'll make every possible data entry error you can imagine, and plenty that you can't.We'd see a lot more progress in business software applications if all vendors would follow two rules: Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureAny interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954400</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>cbreaker</author>
	<datestamp>1257153660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virtualization isn't one of those things that needs to be proven.   It's extremely pervasive and it shows real benefit NOW.   One of those benefits is having less people manage a shit ton more servers (virtual ones) than could ever have been done with physical ones.<br><br>There's so many more that if you're not convinced by now you're just looking for excuses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization is n't one of those things that needs to be proven .
It 's extremely pervasive and it shows real benefit NOW .
One of those benefits is having less people manage a shit ton more servers ( virtual ones ) than could ever have been done with physical ones.There 's so many more that if you 're not convinced by now you 're just looking for excuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization isn't one of those things that needs to be proven.
It's extremely pervasive and it shows real benefit NOW.
One of those benefits is having less people manage a shit ton more servers (virtual ones) than could ever have been done with physical ones.There's so many more that if you're not convinced by now you're just looking for excuses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958204</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future</p></div><p>This is not always as easy as it first sounds. Often, the state of the object <i>as it existed at some point in the past</i> must be preserved, even if that is not the <i>present</i> state of the object <i>as of</i> that date in the past. If you are confused, then take a look at Martin Fowler's article on <a href="http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/TemporalObject.html" title="martinfowler.com">Temporal Objects</a> [martinfowler.com] for an introduction to how deep the rabbit hole goes with "effective dating".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.</p></div><p>Again, combine this with effective dating and you have an interface that is so advanced that it will probably confuse most users even if it is technically implemented correctly.</p><p>computer assisted ERP is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle, but often falls short in practice. Not everyone using the ERP system is going to be an engineer after all; so it is unreasonable to expect that level of sophistication and understanding, even though that may be necessary in order to get real value out of an ERP system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureThis is not always as easy as it first sounds .
Often , the state of the object as it existed at some point in the past must be preserved , even if that is not the present state of the object as of that date in the past .
If you are confused , then take a look at Martin Fowler 's article on Temporal Objects [ martinfowler.com ] for an introduction to how deep the rabbit hole goes with " effective dating " .Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.Again , combine this with effective dating and you have an interface that is so advanced that it will probably confuse most users even if it is technically implemented correctly.computer assisted ERP is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle , but often falls short in practice .
Not everyone using the ERP system is going to be an engineer after all ; so it is unreasonable to expect that level of sophistication and understanding , even though that may be necessary in order to get real value out of an ERP system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the futureThis is not always as easy as it first sounds.
Often, the state of the object as it existed at some point in the past must be preserved, even if that is not the present state of the object as of that date in the past.
If you are confused, then take a look at Martin Fowler's article on Temporal Objects [martinfowler.com] for an introduction to how deep the rabbit hole goes with "effective dating".Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.Again, combine this with effective dating and you have an interface that is so advanced that it will probably confuse most users even if it is technically implemented correctly.computer assisted ERP is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle, but often falls short in practice.
Not everyone using the ERP system is going to be an engineer after all; so it is unreasonable to expect that level of sophistication and understanding, even though that may be necessary in order to get real value out of an ERP system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953634</id>
	<title>Worse list ever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>umm... worse list ever...</p><p>and anyone remember all the shit java was gonna solve for us? i'm still waiting for the OS to not matter. Computers got faster and java go slower. Worse POS ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>umm... worse list ever...and anyone remember all the shit java was gon na solve for us ?
i 'm still waiting for the OS to not matter .
Computers got faster and java go slower .
Worse POS ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>umm... worse list ever...and anyone remember all the shit java was gonna solve for us?
i'm still waiting for the OS to not matter.
Computers got faster and java go slower.
Worse POS ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959312</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1257178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agile Computing - Maintaining good specs and requirements is hard. Just give me something based on this vague description and then I'll blame you when it doesn't do what I want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agile Computing - Maintaining good specs and requirements is hard .
Just give me something based on this vague description and then I 'll blame you when it does n't do what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agile Computing - Maintaining good specs and requirements is hard.
Just give me something based on this vague description and then I'll blame you when it doesn't do what I want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964978</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Veggie13</author>
	<datestamp>1257270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd point out that operations like addition have always been mechanical. If a caveman has two rocks in a pile, and three rocks in his hand, and throws them into the pile, he now has five rocks. This is essentially the same thing a computer is doing.

Now, developing the mental model to understand what arithmetic is and how it works: that's intelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd point out that operations like addition have always been mechanical .
If a caveman has two rocks in a pile , and three rocks in his hand , and throws them into the pile , he now has five rocks .
This is essentially the same thing a computer is doing .
Now , developing the mental model to understand what arithmetic is and how it works : that 's intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd point out that operations like addition have always been mechanical.
If a caveman has two rocks in a pile, and three rocks in his hand, and throws them into the pile, he now has five rocks.
This is essentially the same thing a computer is doing.
Now, developing the mental model to understand what arithmetic is and how it works: that's intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956196</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257161940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which reminds me of my AI prof: "If it doesn't work, it's AI. If it works, it's software engineering." The punch line being that this line of reasoning applied to the same topics, just at different points in time.</p><p>I'm convinced that we won't know when hard AI will be first around. Everyone will be too busy calling it a dumb program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which reminds me of my AI prof : " If it does n't work , it 's AI .
If it works , it 's software engineering .
" The punch line being that this line of reasoning applied to the same topics , just at different points in time.I 'm convinced that we wo n't know when hard AI will be first around .
Everyone will be too busy calling it a dumb program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which reminds me of my AI prof: "If it doesn't work, it's AI.
If it works, it's software engineering.
" The punch line being that this line of reasoning applied to the same topics, just at different points in time.I'm convinced that we won't know when hard AI will be first around.
Everyone will be too busy calling it a dumb program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956340</id>
	<title>Re:The crazy hottie</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257162660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take that over a slick Power-Point presentation any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take that over a slick Power-Point presentation any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take that over a slick Power-Point presentation any day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953792</id>
	<title>Re:Machine translation replacing human translation</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1257194340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let' s apenas diz que a tecnologia n&#227;o est&#225; completamente l&#225; ainda.
<br> <br>
Let's joost sey zee technulugy is nut qooeete-a zeere-a yet.
Bork Bork Bork!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let ' s apenas diz que a tecnologia n   o est   completamente l   ainda .
Let 's joost sey zee technulugy is nut qooeete-a zeere-a yet .
Bork Bork Bork !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let' s apenas diz que a tecnologia não está completamente lá ainda.
Let's joost sey zee technulugy is nut qooeete-a zeere-a yet.
Bork Bork Bork!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960746</id>
	<title>Re:The anti-spam space is rife with these</title>
	<author>emurphy42</author>
	<datestamp>1257191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering, another technology hyped as The Answer. Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could defeat it at will -- and that they have, for years. There are STILL people out burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates, in a self-defeating exercise in futility, because they haven't realized yet that spammers can run the same algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam. And many do.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The spammers can't pre-vet their spam against what is ham <em>for me</em> - only against their best estimate of a typical shlub - so it does some of us some good, at least, especially for work accounts where even the shlubs' ham tends to differ widely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering , another technology hyped as The Answer .
Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could defeat it at will -- and that they have , for years .
There are STILL people out burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates , in a self-defeating exercise in futility , because they have n't realized yet that spammers can run the same algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam .
And many do .
The spammers ca n't pre-vet their spam against what is ham for me - only against their best estimate of a typical shlub - so it does some of us some good , at least , especially for work accounts where even the shlubs ' ham tends to differ widely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering, another technology hyped as The Answer.
Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could defeat it at will -- and that they have, for years.
There are STILL people out burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates, in a self-defeating exercise in futility, because they haven't realized yet that spammers can run the same algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam.
And many do.
The spammers can't pre-vet their spam against what is ham for me - only against their best estimate of a typical shlub - so it does some of us some good, at least, especially for work accounts where even the shlubs' ham tends to differ widely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953376</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1257192480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Artificial intelligence is trying to make computers do things that are currently very hard for a computer to do, but very easy for a human to do. Once there are ubiquitous algorithms / hardware to do something as fast as a human can, we remove it from the category of "things computers will never be able to do as well as people."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Artificial intelligence is trying to make computers do things that are currently very hard for a computer to do , but very easy for a human to do .
Once there are ubiquitous algorithms / hardware to do something as fast as a human can , we remove it from the category of " things computers will never be able to do as well as people .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artificial intelligence is trying to make computers do things that are currently very hard for a computer to do, but very easy for a human to do.
Once there are ubiquitous algorithms / hardware to do something as fast as a human can, we remove it from the category of "things computers will never be able to do as well as people.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953668</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a dumb argument.  It's equivalent to saying airliners are a hype because it's not a good solution for private recreational flying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a dumb argument .
It 's equivalent to saying airliners are a hype because it 's not a good solution for private recreational flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a dumb argument.
It's equivalent to saying airliners are a hype because it's not a good solution for private recreational flying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848</id>
	<title>ERP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was surprised to find ERP on this list.  Sure, it's a huge effort and always oversold, but there's hardly a large manufacturing company out there that could survive without some sort of basic ERP implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was surprised to find ERP on this list .
Sure , it 's a huge effort and always oversold , but there 's hardly a large manufacturing company out there that could survive without some sort of basic ERP implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was surprised to find ERP on this list.
Sure, it's a huge effort and always oversold, but there's hardly a large manufacturing company out there that could survive without some sort of basic ERP implementation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954442</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257153840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence.  Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.  Then those engineer types invented the adding machine.  Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines?  No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.</p><p>Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over.  As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.  Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists.  This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers. By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits.  So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.</p><p>Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other.  Did these lead to development of intelligent software?  Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.  But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.</p><p>So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence.  Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical".  When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.</p><p>Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.</p></div><p>What do you think of emerging cure-alls like VDI and "Cloud Computing"?  I subscribe to the concept of the Gartner "Hype Curve" that basically says most "new technology" undergoes a standard curve of initial, wildly over-stated expectations, followed by a "crash" where the technology is demonized or eventually ignored, followed by a "plateau of productivity" in which the real (but limited) benefits of the technology are determined and appropriately utilized.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most obvious counterexample to the " AI " nonsense is to consider that , back around 1800 or any time earlier , it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence .
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract ; only we smart humans could do that .
Then those engineer types invented the adding machine .
Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines ?
No ; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as " mechanical " actions that required no intelligence at all.Fast forward to the computer age , and you see the same process over and over .
As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer , it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence ; it 's a mere mechanical activity .
Back in the 1960s , when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol , the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form , variable-length lists .
This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers .
By the early 1970s , however , list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits .
So it was just a " software engineering " tool , a mechanical activity that did n't require any machine intelligence.Meanwhile , the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated " intelligent " data structures , such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other .
Did these lead to development of intelligent software ?
Well , now some of our common programming languages ( perl , prolog , etc .
) include such tables as basic data types , and the programmers use them routinely .
But nobody considers the resulting software " intelligent " ; it 's merely more complex computer software , but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.So my prediction is that we 'll never have Artificial Intelligence .
Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from " intelligent " to " merely mechanical " .
When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch , it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities , requiring no actual intelligence.Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do , I ca n't predict.What do you think of emerging cure-alls like VDI and " Cloud Computing " ?
I subscribe to the concept of the Gartner " Hype Curve " that basically says most " new technology " undergoes a standard curve of initial , wildly over-stated expectations , followed by a " crash " where the technology is demonized or eventually ignored , followed by a " plateau of productivity " in which the real ( but limited ) benefits of the technology are determined and appropriately utilized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence.
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.
Then those engineer types invented the adding machine.
Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines?
No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over.
As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.
Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists.
This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers.
By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits.
So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other.
Did these lead to development of intelligent software?
Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.
) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.
But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence.
Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical".
When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.What do you think of emerging cure-alls like VDI and "Cloud Computing"?
I subscribe to the concept of the Gartner "Hype Curve" that basically says most "new technology" undergoes a standard curve of initial, wildly over-stated expectations, followed by a "crash" where the technology is demonized or eventually ignored, followed by a "plateau of productivity" in which the real (but limited) benefits of the technology are determined and appropriately utilized.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955584</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1257159180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pardon my ignorance, but you do have to run a separate, virtualized "copy" of Windows for each instance of FoxPro or any other app, right?  Or have I missed something where it is possible to somehow virtualize a single application?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my ignorance , but you do have to run a separate , virtualized " copy " of Windows for each instance of FoxPro or any other app , right ?
Or have I missed something where it is possible to somehow virtualize a single application ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my ignorance, but you do have to run a separate, virtualized "copy" of Windows for each instance of FoxPro or any other app, right?
Or have I missed something where it is possible to somehow virtualize a single application?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954536</id>
	<title>Rob Enderle did the hyping originally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257154260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hilarious that Rob Enderle is quoted in the article (which automatically means it is valueless) talking about how somethings were over-hyped but he is the guy who is always willing to provide a quote about how the next big fad will have a market value of a bazillion dollars in 2 years.  That is why I don't subscribe to magazines who use him as an authority.  I would love to see someone go back and get all of his predictions and find what percentage were even close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hilarious that Rob Enderle is quoted in the article ( which automatically means it is valueless ) talking about how somethings were over-hyped but he is the guy who is always willing to provide a quote about how the next big fad will have a market value of a bazillion dollars in 2 years .
That is why I do n't subscribe to magazines who use him as an authority .
I would love to see someone go back and get all of his predictions and find what percentage were even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hilarious that Rob Enderle is quoted in the article (which automatically means it is valueless) talking about how somethings were over-hyped but he is the guy who is always willing to provide a quote about how the next big fad will have a market value of a bazillion dollars in 2 years.
That is why I don't subscribe to magazines who use him as an authority.
I would love to see someone go back and get all of his predictions and find what percentage were even close.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962238</id>
	<title>Just a simple misunderstanding...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257255420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's typical mismatch between the promises and the expectations...</p><p>Vendor: This computer will reduce your workload by half.<br>Customer: Great! I'll take two!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's typical mismatch between the promises and the expectations...Vendor : This computer will reduce your workload by half.Customer : Great !
I 'll take two !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's typical mismatch between the promises and the expectations...Vendor: This computer will reduce your workload by half.Customer: Great!
I'll take two!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955840</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1257160260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.</i>
</p><p>Tens of thousands ?  For well under ten grand you'll get a server that will do all of that with loads of capacity to spare - a vastly superior solution than 5-6 individual servers all idling along with a utilisation in the the single-digit-percentages.
</p><p> <i>Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.</i>
</p><p>The benefits of virtualisation are so clear, and its cost so low (essentially free), that in today's work it should be the default scenario - only not used in extraordinary circumstances.  Heck, there's little reason not to virtualise a single app on a single server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you have maybe $ 10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no , the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline .
Tens of thousands ?
For well under ten grand you 'll get a server that will do all of that with loads of capacity to spare - a vastly superior solution than 5-6 individual servers all idling along with a utilisation in the the single-digit-percentages .
Virtualization has it 's place , but only at the larger companies .
The benefits of virtualisation are so clear , and its cost so low ( essentially free ) , that in today 's work it should be the default scenario - only not used in extraordinary circumstances .
Heck , there 's little reason not to virtualise a single app on a single server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.
Tens of thousands ?
For well under ten grand you'll get a server that will do all of that with loads of capacity to spare - a vastly superior solution than 5-6 individual servers all idling along with a utilisation in the the single-digit-percentages.
Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.
The benefits of virtualisation are so clear, and its cost so low (essentially free), that in today's work it should be the default scenario - only not used in extraordinary circumstances.
Heck, there's little reason not to virtualise a single app on a single server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957636</id>
	<title>Ada-83</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boy, was that a dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy , was that a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy, was that a dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future. It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.''</p><p>I am sure they have, but does it actually benefit them? In many cases, it seems to me, it's just people trying their best to come up with problems, just so they can apply virtualization as a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future .
It 's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure .
''I am sure they have , but does it actually benefit them ?
In many cases , it seems to me , it 's just people trying their best to come up with problems , just so they can apply virtualization as a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future.
It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.
''I am sure they have, but does it actually benefit them?
In many cases, it seems to me, it's just people trying their best to come up with problems, just so they can apply virtualization as a solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954818</id>
	<title>Re:It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1257155520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Smart Grid" should appear on this list for this exact reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Smart Grid " should appear on this list for this exact reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Smart Grid" should appear on this list for this exact reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963610</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1257264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VMware supports clusters, if a physical server stops working the others are able to instantly take over. Try again nublet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VMware supports clusters , if a physical server stops working the others are able to instantly take over .
Try again nublet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VMware supports clusters, if a physical server stops working the others are able to instantly take over.
Try again nublet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957296</id>
	<title>SAP?</title>
	<author>slycer</author>
	<datestamp>1257168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A colleague and I were talking about this the other day. Both he and I are of the opinion that SAP does nowhere near what it should. This was supposed to replace HR departments, accounting departments, internal databases etc etc.</p><p>Instead it seems to attract contractors/support staff, more than any other product I have ever seen, while not really making anything simpler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A colleague and I were talking about this the other day .
Both he and I are of the opinion that SAP does nowhere near what it should .
This was supposed to replace HR departments , accounting departments , internal databases etc etc.Instead it seems to attract contractors/support staff , more than any other product I have ever seen , while not really making anything simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A colleague and I were talking about this the other day.
Both he and I are of the opinion that SAP does nowhere near what it should.
This was supposed to replace HR departments, accounting departments, internal databases etc etc.Instead it seems to attract contractors/support staff, more than any other product I have ever seen, while not really making anything simpler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953320</id>
	<title>Bad specifications...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1257192300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The idea of CASE was to produce better code faster by having a computer do it," says McLean. "Just feed your specifications into the front end, and it'll spit out flawless code. The vendors counted on customers who did not realize that the biggest problem in these projects is bad specifications, and they found a lot of those customers. So, people fed bad specs in one end and got bad code out of the other."</p></div><p>So, they never asked a single professional programmer?  XD  Seriously, has ANYONE EVER gotten a spec that wasn't ridiculously underspecified, internally contradictory, and containing numerous very very bad ideas?  Anyone who's done any professional coding knows that the best way to make a product that probably does not look good and certainly does not do anything useful and does not even work right for the things it does do, is to give the customer exactly what they asked for.  Although I've used that as a tactic before as a starting point.  First, implement exactly what they asked for, then rather than trying to explain to them why that won't work, show them.  But I use that as a last resort...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The idea of CASE was to produce better code faster by having a computer do it , " says McLean .
" Just feed your specifications into the front end , and it 'll spit out flawless code .
The vendors counted on customers who did not realize that the biggest problem in these projects is bad specifications , and they found a lot of those customers .
So , people fed bad specs in one end and got bad code out of the other .
" So , they never asked a single professional programmer ?
XD Seriously , has ANYONE EVER gotten a spec that was n't ridiculously underspecified , internally contradictory , and containing numerous very very bad ideas ?
Anyone who 's done any professional coding knows that the best way to make a product that probably does not look good and certainly does not do anything useful and does not even work right for the things it does do , is to give the customer exactly what they asked for .
Although I 've used that as a tactic before as a starting point .
First , implement exactly what they asked for , then rather than trying to explain to them why that wo n't work , show them .
But I use that as a last resort.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The idea of CASE was to produce better code faster by having a computer do it," says McLean.
"Just feed your specifications into the front end, and it'll spit out flawless code.
The vendors counted on customers who did not realize that the biggest problem in these projects is bad specifications, and they found a lot of those customers.
So, people fed bad specs in one end and got bad code out of the other.
"So, they never asked a single professional programmer?
XD  Seriously, has ANYONE EVER gotten a spec that wasn't ridiculously underspecified, internally contradictory, and containing numerous very very bad ideas?
Anyone who's done any professional coding knows that the best way to make a product that probably does not look good and certainly does not do anything useful and does not even work right for the things it does do, is to give the customer exactly what they asked for.
Although I've used that as a tactic before as a starting point.
First, implement exactly what they asked for, then rather than trying to explain to them why that won't work, show them.
But I use that as a last resort...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961510</id>
	<title>Missed a couple...</title>
	<author>mdm42</author>
	<datestamp>1257247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>UML</b>. UML was going to eliminate the Software Backlog, cure Cancer and Solve World Hunger...
<p>
<b>XML</b>. Need I say more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UML .
UML was going to eliminate the Software Backlog , cure Cancer and Solve World Hunger.. . XML. Need I say more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UML.
UML was going to eliminate the Software Backlog, cure Cancer and Solve World Hunger...

XML. Need I say more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330</id>
	<title>I call BS on this story</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1257192300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Artificial intelligence" - what's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox?  How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you?  Ever gotten directions from Google Maps?</p><p>"Computer-aided software engineering" - tools like valgrind, findbugs, fuzzing tools for finding security problems.</p><p>"Thin clients" - ever heard of a "Web Browser"?</p><p>"Enterprise social media" - That really describes most of the Internet</p><p>As soon as I saw an opionion from "Ron Enderle" I knew this story would be BS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Artificial intelligence " - what 's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox ?
How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you ?
Ever gotten directions from Google Maps ?
" Computer-aided software engineering " - tools like valgrind , findbugs , fuzzing tools for finding security problems .
" Thin clients " - ever heard of a " Web Browser " ?
" Enterprise social media " - That really describes most of the InternetAs soon as I saw an opionion from " Ron Enderle " I knew this story would be BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Artificial intelligence" - what's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox?
How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you?
Ever gotten directions from Google Maps?
"Computer-aided software engineering" - tools like valgrind, findbugs, fuzzing tools for finding security problems.
"Thin clients" - ever heard of a "Web Browser"?
"Enterprise social media" - That really describes most of the InternetAs soon as I saw an opionion from "Ron Enderle" I knew this story would be BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953094</id>
	<title>TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If nothing else, thanks for linking to the print version of the article...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , thanks for linking to the print version of the article.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, thanks for linking to the print version of the article...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953692</id>
	<title>ERP is in use in the film industry today</title>
	<author>michaelhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1257193860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ERP is being used to organize one of the most fundamentally disorganized business models: filmmaking.<p>
-</p><p>
The software begins with contracts and actor/object/location definitions; connects all this to the script; semi-automatizes the previsualization process; links into all aspects of camera work, lighting, equipment rental and purchasing; defines and limits purchases for the art department and costuming; brings the design teams in direct, continuous, and streamlined communication with the director and department heads, via hand held computers; links into all aspects of post production; cuts the checks.
</p><p>
Far from being a failure, the software boasts a 5:1 ratio of footage-shot:footage-exhibited, compared to the average of 40:1.
</p><p>
This software has been used on major features like No Country For Old Men.
</p><p>
The financial benefits of the software-led creative process is impacting the traditional centers of film production.
</p><p>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7979381.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7979381.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ERP is being used to organize one of the most fundamentally disorganized business models : filmmaking .
- The software begins with contracts and actor/object/location definitions ; connects all this to the script ; semi-automatizes the previsualization process ; links into all aspects of camera work , lighting , equipment rental and purchasing ; defines and limits purchases for the art department and costuming ; brings the design teams in direct , continuous , and streamlined communication with the director and department heads , via hand held computers ; links into all aspects of post production ; cuts the checks .
Far from being a failure , the software boasts a 5 : 1 ratio of footage-shot : footage-exhibited , compared to the average of 40 : 1 .
This software has been used on major features like No Country For Old Men .
The financial benefits of the software-led creative process is impacting the traditional centers of film production .
http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7979381.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ERP is being used to organize one of the most fundamentally disorganized business models: filmmaking.
-
The software begins with contracts and actor/object/location definitions; connects all this to the script; semi-automatizes the previsualization process; links into all aspects of camera work, lighting, equipment rental and purchasing; defines and limits purchases for the art department and costuming; brings the design teams in direct, continuous, and streamlined communication with the director and department heads, via hand held computers; links into all aspects of post production; cuts the checks.
Far from being a failure, the software boasts a 5:1 ratio of footage-shot:footage-exhibited, compared to the average of 40:1.
This software has been used on major features like No Country For Old Men.
The financial benefits of the software-led creative process is impacting the traditional centers of film production.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7979381.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955286</id>
	<title>Re:I call BS on this story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>As soon as I saw an opionion from "Ron Enderle" I knew this story would be BS</i>"</p><p>His opinions are actually quite useful.  It seems that you can bank on the opposite of any of his predictions with a high degree of accuracy following that formula.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As soon as I saw an opionion from " Ron Enderle " I knew this story would be BS " His opinions are actually quite useful .
It seems that you can bank on the opposite of any of his predictions with a high degree of accuracy following that formula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As soon as I saw an opionion from "Ron Enderle" I knew this story would be BS"His opinions are actually quite useful.
It seems that you can bank on the opposite of any of his predictions with a high degree of accuracy following that formula.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953726</id>
	<title>4 out f 6 ain't bad</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1257193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By my reckoning,<br>AI,<br>Thin clients (now known as using the cloud or SAAS (Gmail etc) or other webapps on a laptop),<br>CASE (What do you think Eclipse with GIT or Subversion is?),<br>and ERP are all going strong.</p><p>I think that A. the hype is not usually generated by the majority of people working in the field,<br>and B. how strong the hype is is kind of random compared to the progress that's actually going<br>on. Perception != Reality.</p><p>Best to investigate deeper in each case, rather than believing either the hype or<br>the anti-hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By my reckoning,AI,Thin clients ( now known as using the cloud or SAAS ( Gmail etc ) or other webapps on a laptop ) ,CASE ( What do you think Eclipse with GIT or Subversion is ?
) ,and ERP are all going strong.I think that A. the hype is not usually generated by the majority of people working in the field,and B. how strong the hype is is kind of random compared to the progress that 's actually goingon .
Perception ! = Reality.Best to investigate deeper in each case , rather than believing either the hype orthe anti-hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By my reckoning,AI,Thin clients (now known as using the cloud or SAAS (Gmail etc) or other webapps on a laptop),CASE (What do you think Eclipse with GIT or Subversion is?
),and ERP are all going strong.I think that A. the hype is not usually generated by the majority of people working in the field,and B. how strong the hype is is kind of random compared to the progress that's actually goingon.
Perception != Reality.Best to investigate deeper in each case, rather than believing either the hype orthe anti-hype.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954080</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>cecille</author>
	<datestamp>1257195540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe.  But I think it's mostly just a disconnect between what the people who work in the field believe the term to mean and what the general public takes the term to mean.  Some of that might just be naivete on the part of researchers.  And maybe some bravado as well.<br> <br>

When I hear about intelligent anything to do with computers, I just think of a system that learns.  That, to me, is the key differentiator.  On the other hand, my mom's friend was telling me one night at dinner that her son was taking a class where they're "building machines like brains".  Well, he was clearly learning about ANNs in some undergrad CI course, but man, it sure sounds better when you say you're building brains, eh?  It sounds like self-aware systems are a semesters worth of work away.  Maybe he was trying to make his work sound more impressive.  Or maybe his mom just took the wrong thing away from the conversation.  Either way, he's talking about building an XOR and she's thinking Commander Data.<br> <br>

To be honest, though, researchers aren't always clear on what the terms mean either.  Don't get me wrong - you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher who genuinely believes they are going to build a self-aware system or anything of the sort, but I remember going to a conference with an hour and a half long panel discussion on whether or not the fields of AI and CI should be combined or separated in the conference, and what each encompassed.  No one had a good answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
But I think it 's mostly just a disconnect between what the people who work in the field believe the term to mean and what the general public takes the term to mean .
Some of that might just be naivete on the part of researchers .
And maybe some bravado as well .
When I hear about intelligent anything to do with computers , I just think of a system that learns .
That , to me , is the key differentiator .
On the other hand , my mom 's friend was telling me one night at dinner that her son was taking a class where they 're " building machines like brains " .
Well , he was clearly learning about ANNs in some undergrad CI course , but man , it sure sounds better when you say you 're building brains , eh ?
It sounds like self-aware systems are a semesters worth of work away .
Maybe he was trying to make his work sound more impressive .
Or maybe his mom just took the wrong thing away from the conversation .
Either way , he 's talking about building an XOR and she 's thinking Commander Data .
To be honest , though , researchers are n't always clear on what the terms mean either .
Do n't get me wrong - you 'd be hard pressed to find a researcher who genuinely believes they are going to build a self-aware system or anything of the sort , but I remember going to a conference with an hour and a half long panel discussion on whether or not the fields of AI and CI should be combined or separated in the conference , and what each encompassed .
No one had a good answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
But I think it's mostly just a disconnect between what the people who work in the field believe the term to mean and what the general public takes the term to mean.
Some of that might just be naivete on the part of researchers.
And maybe some bravado as well.
When I hear about intelligent anything to do with computers, I just think of a system that learns.
That, to me, is the key differentiator.
On the other hand, my mom's friend was telling me one night at dinner that her son was taking a class where they're "building machines like brains".
Well, he was clearly learning about ANNs in some undergrad CI course, but man, it sure sounds better when you say you're building brains, eh?
It sounds like self-aware systems are a semesters worth of work away.
Maybe he was trying to make his work sound more impressive.
Or maybe his mom just took the wrong thing away from the conversation.
Either way, he's talking about building an XOR and she's thinking Commander Data.
To be honest, though, researchers aren't always clear on what the terms mean either.
Don't get me wrong - you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher who genuinely believes they are going to build a self-aware system or anything of the sort, but I remember going to a conference with an hour and a half long panel discussion on whether or not the fields of AI and CI should be combined or separated in the conference, and what each encompassed.
No one had a good answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666</id>
	<title>In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.</p></div><p>Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines.  The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.  So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence, it's just very simple artificial intelligence.  While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics, statistics and messes of if/then decision trees, successful AI is nothing more than that.  Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably don't know it.  For instance, your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans.  Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms.  I mean, the article even says this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The ability of your bank's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work, says Mow. Speech and handwriting recognition, business process management, data mining, and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.</p></div><p>Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind.  I don't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines.  <br> <br>

In short, I don't think it's fair to put it in this list as it has had success.  It's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you <a href="http://arxiv.org/list/cs.AI/recent" title="arxiv.org">the field is a valid one</a> [arxiv.org] (unlike CASE or ERP).  In short, AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows.  It has not gone 'bunk' (<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunk" title="wiktionary.org">whatever the hell that means</a> [wiktionary.org]).  You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole.  The only thing that's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply cannot deliver on.  And that's nothing new nor anything specific to AI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.Only idiots , marketers , businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines .
The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI , like so many other things , would benefit us in small steps .
So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence , it 's just very simple artificial intelligence .
While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics , statistics and messes of if/then decision trees , successful AI is nothing more than that .
Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably do n't know it .
For instance , your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans .
Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms .
I mean , the article even says this : The ability of your bank 's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work , says Mow .
Speech and handwriting recognition , business process management , data mining , and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.Having taken several courses on AI , I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind .
I do n't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines .
In short , I do n't think it 's fair to put it in this list as it has had success .
It 's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you the field is a valid one [ arxiv.org ] ( unlike CASE or ERP ) .
In short , AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows .
It has not gone 'bunk ' ( whatever the hell that means [ wiktionary.org ] ) .
You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole .
The only thing that 's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply can not deliver on .
And that 's nothing new nor anything specific to AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines.
The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.
So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence, it's just very simple artificial intelligence.
While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics, statistics and messes of if/then decision trees, successful AI is nothing more than that.
Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably don't know it.
For instance, your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans.
Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms.
I mean, the article even says this:The ability of your bank's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work, says Mow.
Speech and handwriting recognition, business process management, data mining, and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind.
I don't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines.
In short, I don't think it's fair to put it in this list as it has had success.
It's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you the field is a valid one [arxiv.org] (unlike CASE or ERP).
In short, AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows.
It has not gone 'bunk' (whatever the hell that means [wiktionary.org]).
You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole.
The only thing that's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply cannot deliver on.
And that's nothing new nor anything specific to AI.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</id>
	<title>Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1257193620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence.  Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.  Then those engineer types invented the adding machine.  Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines?  No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.</p><p>Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over.  As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.  Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists.  This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers. By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits.  So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.</p><p>Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other.  Did these lead to development of intelligent software?  Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.  But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.</p><p>So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence.  Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical".  When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.</p><p>Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most obvious counterexample to the " AI " nonsense is to consider that , back around 1800 or any time earlier , it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence .
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract ; only we smart humans could do that .
Then those engineer types invented the adding machine .
Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines ?
No ; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as " mechanical " actions that required no intelligence at all.Fast forward to the computer age , and you see the same process over and over .
As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer , it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence ; it 's a mere mechanical activity .
Back in the 1960s , when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol , the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form , variable-length lists .
This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers .
By the early 1970s , however , list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits .
So it was just a " software engineering " tool , a mechanical activity that did n't require any machine intelligence.Meanwhile , the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated " intelligent " data structures , such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other .
Did these lead to development of intelligent software ?
Well , now some of our common programming languages ( perl , prolog , etc .
) include such tables as basic data types , and the programmers use them routinely .
But nobody considers the resulting software " intelligent " ; it 's merely more complex computer software , but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.So my prediction is that we 'll never have Artificial Intelligence .
Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from " intelligent " to " merely mechanical " .
When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch , it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities , requiring no actual intelligence.Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do , I ca n't predict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence.
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.
Then those engineer types invented the adding machine.
Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines?
No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over.
As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.
Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists.
This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers.
By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits.
So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other.
Did these lead to development of intelligent software?
Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.
) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.
But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence.
Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical".
When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</id>
	<title>It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1257191040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the technologies in the article were overhyped but almost all have had real value in the marketplace.
<br> <br>
For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.  Expert systems (a better name) or technologies that are part of them are in place in thousands of back-office systems.
<br> <br>
But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait.  Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal.  Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the technologies in the article were overhyped but almost all have had real value in the marketplace .
For example , AI works and is a very strong technology , but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them .
Expert systems ( a better name ) or technologies that are part of them are in place in thousands of back-office systems .
But , if you 're looking for HAL , you have another 2001 years to wait .
Nobody seriously is working toward that , except as a dream goal .
Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the technologies in the article were overhyped but almost all have had real value in the marketplace.
For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.
Expert systems (a better name) or technologies that are part of them are in place in thousands of back-office systems.
But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait.
Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal.
Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953190</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uhm, you build a cluster with cheap servers and you will be fine.  shoot, even virtualizing and keeping it as a single use server is still a good idea as the image can go just about anywhere and you wont have to futz with images for different machines (one email server image that will go on an opteron or a xeon or windows or linux or whatever)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uhm , you build a cluster with cheap servers and you will be fine .
shoot , even virtualizing and keeping it as a single use server is still a good idea as the image can go just about anywhere and you wont have to futz with images for different machines ( one email server image that will go on an opteron or a xeon or windows or linux or whatever )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhm, you build a cluster with cheap servers and you will be fine.
shoot, even virtualizing and keeping it as a single use server is still a good idea as the image can go just about anywhere and you wont have to futz with images for different machines (one email server image that will go on an opteron or a xeon or windows or linux or whatever)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956442</id>
	<title>Single-Sign On</title>
	<author>Tweezer</author>
	<datestamp>1257163260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting to see this in action.  I know it's fairly easy to synch passwords between systems and even provide some parts of SSO, but I'm still waiting on the application that lets me long into Windows in the morning and never be presented with another login box for the rest of the day.  I don't expect it to ever happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting to see this in action .
I know it 's fairly easy to synch passwords between systems and even provide some parts of SSO , but I 'm still waiting on the application that lets me long into Windows in the morning and never be presented with another login box for the rest of the day .
I do n't expect it to ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting to see this in action.
I know it's fairly easy to synch passwords between systems and even provide some parts of SSO, but I'm still waiting on the application that lets me long into Windows in the morning and never be presented with another login box for the rest of the day.
I don't expect it to ever happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958326</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virtualization can be valuable in this context yes, but with proper <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven\_development" title="wikipedia.org">Test Driven Development</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html" title="martinfowler.com">Inversion of Control</a> [martinfowler.com] containers, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock\_object" title="wikipedia.org">object mocking</a> [wikipedia.org] frameworks it should be possible to do most of the testing without having to spin up an entire virtual simulation of the execution environment. Combine this with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAnt" title="wikipedia.org">build and deployment scripting</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html" title="martinfowler.com">continuous integration</a> [martinfowler.com] for a really first-class development operation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization can be valuable in this context yes , but with proper Test Driven Development [ wikipedia.org ] , Inversion of Control [ martinfowler.com ] containers , and object mocking [ wikipedia.org ] frameworks it should be possible to do most of the testing without having to spin up an entire virtual simulation of the execution environment .
Combine this with build and deployment scripting [ wikipedia.org ] and continuous integration [ martinfowler.com ] for a really first-class development operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization can be valuable in this context yes, but with proper Test Driven Development [wikipedia.org], Inversion of Control [martinfowler.com] containers, and object mocking [wikipedia.org] frameworks it should be possible to do most of the testing without having to spin up an entire virtual simulation of the execution environment.
Combine this with build and deployment scripting [wikipedia.org] and continuous integration [martinfowler.com] for a really first-class development operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953386</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.</p></div><p>Even if that's true (and other responders have already explained why it's not), that doesn't make it "snake oil", as the article suggests. "Snake oil" is something that simply doesn't do what it has been claimed to do, period. "Snake oil" is not something being marketed to the wrong customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization has it 's place , but only at the larger companies.Even if that 's true ( and other responders have already explained why it 's not ) , that does n't make it " snake oil " , as the article suggests .
" Snake oil " is something that simply does n't do what it has been claimed to do , period .
" Snake oil " is not something being marketed to the wrong customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.Even if that's true (and other responders have already explained why it's not), that doesn't make it "snake oil", as the article suggests.
"Snake oil" is something that simply doesn't do what it has been claimed to do, period.
"Snake oil" is not something being marketed to the wrong customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955042</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1257156780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers"</p><p>How is it, then, that our little company has *greatly* benefited from virtualization? We are an IT company and we use it mainly for development/stage environments and it is working for us fantastabously.  And no, we don't virtualize anything already on its own iron unless we have a strong reason (big refactoring/reinstalling, etc.): we are not short of rack space or too worried about our electric consumption, so if it works why touch it?</p><p>By your explanations it seems not a problem with virtualization itself which can indeed serve very well even for short companies (you talk about a death motherboard: what about an HA virtualization environment with just two servers if you don't need more?) but, as almost always, unknowledgeable decision makers that give more credit to snake-oil sellers and their brightly coloured brochures than to their own in-house professionals.</p><p>So, rewriting the credits, "IT Snake Oil, Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk reduced to one: Management".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" because virtualization only works for large companies with many , many servers " How is it , then , that our little company has * greatly * benefited from virtualization ?
We are an IT company and we use it mainly for development/stage environments and it is working for us fantastabously .
And no , we do n't virtualize anything already on its own iron unless we have a strong reason ( big refactoring/reinstalling , etc .
) : we are not short of rack space or too worried about our electric consumption , so if it works why touch it ? By your explanations it seems not a problem with virtualization itself which can indeed serve very well even for short companies ( you talk about a death motherboard : what about an HA virtualization environment with just two servers if you do n't need more ?
) but , as almost always , unknowledgeable decision makers that give more credit to snake-oil sellers and their brightly coloured brochures than to their own in-house professionals.So , rewriting the credits , " IT Snake Oil , Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk reduced to one : Management " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers"How is it, then, that our little company has *greatly* benefited from virtualization?
We are an IT company and we use it mainly for development/stage environments and it is working for us fantastabously.
And no, we don't virtualize anything already on its own iron unless we have a strong reason (big refactoring/reinstalling, etc.
): we are not short of rack space or too worried about our electric consumption, so if it works why touch it?By your explanations it seems not a problem with virtualization itself which can indeed serve very well even for short companies (you talk about a death motherboard: what about an HA virtualization environment with just two servers if you don't need more?
) but, as almost always, unknowledgeable decision makers that give more credit to snake-oil sellers and their brightly coloured brochures than to their own in-house professionals.So, rewriting the credits, "IT Snake Oil, Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk reduced to one: Management".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956292</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All my license server are virtualized.
I don't have the stress when the server dies, I don't have the stress when I have to relocate subset of the licenses.
I can see any software shop taking advantage of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All my license server are virtualized .
I do n't have the stress when the server dies , I do n't have the stress when I have to relocate subset of the licenses .
I can see any software shop taking advantage of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All my license server are virtualized.
I don't have the stress when the server dies, I don't have the stress when I have to relocate subset of the licenses.
I can see any software shop taking advantage of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953302</id>
	<title>Hello, IT department.</title>
	<author>theinvisibleguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257192240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you tried turning it off and turning it on again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried turning it off and turning it on again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried turning it off and turning it on again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</id>
	<title>Those aren't all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used to play buzzword bingo when vendors would come in for a show.  Some of my personal favorites:

</p><p>IT Best Practices - Has anyone seen my big book of best practices?  I seem to have misplaced it.  But that never stopped vendors from pretending there was an IT bible out there that spelled out the procedures for running an IT shop.  And always it was their product at the core of IT best practices.

</p><p>Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out.  This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.

</p><p>Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.

</p><p>Web 2.0 - Javascript by any other name is still var rose.

</p><p>SOA - What a gold mine that one was.  Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium.  But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!

</p><p>All those are just ways for vendors and contractors to make management feel stupid and out of touch.  Many management teams don't need any help in that arena, most of them are already out of touch before the vendor walks in.  Exactly why they're not running back to their internal IT people to inquire why installing Siebel is a really BAD idea.  You can't fix bad business practices with technology.  Fix your business practices first, then find the solution that best fits what you're already doing.

</p><p>And whoever has my IT Best Practices book, please bring it back.  Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We used to play buzzword bingo when vendors would come in for a show .
Some of my personal favorites : IT Best Practices - Has anyone seen my big book of best practices ?
I seem to have misplaced it .
But that never stopped vendors from pretending there was an IT bible out there that spelled out the procedures for running an IT shop .
And always it was their product at the core of IT best practices .
Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out .
This is your PC , this is your PC in spin class .
Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service .
Web 2.0 - Javascript by any other name is still var rose .
SOA - What a gold mine that one was .
Calling it " web services " did n't command a very high premium .
But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more !
All those are just ways for vendors and contractors to make management feel stupid and out of touch .
Many management teams do n't need any help in that arena , most of them are already out of touch before the vendor walks in .
Exactly why they 're not running back to their internal IT people to inquire why installing Siebel is a really BAD idea .
You ca n't fix bad business practices with technology .
Fix your business practices first , then find the solution that best fits what you 're already doing .
And whoever has my IT Best Practices book , please bring it back .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used to play buzzword bingo when vendors would come in for a show.
Some of my personal favorites:

IT Best Practices - Has anyone seen my big book of best practices?
I seem to have misplaced it.
But that never stopped vendors from pretending there was an IT bible out there that spelled out the procedures for running an IT shop.
And always it was their product at the core of IT best practices.
Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out.
This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.
Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.
Web 2.0 - Javascript by any other name is still var rose.
SOA - What a gold mine that one was.
Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium.
But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!
All those are just ways for vendors and contractors to make management feel stupid and out of touch.
Many management teams don't need any help in that arena, most of them are already out of touch before the vendor walks in.
Exactly why they're not running back to their internal IT people to inquire why installing Siebel is a really BAD idea.
You can't fix bad business practices with technology.
Fix your business practices first, then find the solution that best fits what you're already doing.
And whoever has my IT Best Practices book, please bring it back.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954952</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks for linking to the print version</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1257156240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually found the print version to be kind of annoying. On a wide screen reading from one edge of the screen to the next isn't as comfortable as having it condensed in to the middle third of the screen like the regular version is. I actually Googled the page title to find the normal version. I'd rather wait the tenth of a second that it takes for the next page to load.

Slashdotters seem to have an irrational hatred for multi-page articles, but with AdBlock I'd rather have multiple pages than no formatting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually found the print version to be kind of annoying .
On a wide screen reading from one edge of the screen to the next is n't as comfortable as having it condensed in to the middle third of the screen like the regular version is .
I actually Googled the page title to find the normal version .
I 'd rather wait the tenth of a second that it takes for the next page to load .
Slashdotters seem to have an irrational hatred for multi-page articles , but with AdBlock I 'd rather have multiple pages than no formatting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually found the print version to be kind of annoying.
On a wide screen reading from one edge of the screen to the next isn't as comfortable as having it condensed in to the middle third of the screen like the regular version is.
I actually Googled the page title to find the normal version.
I'd rather wait the tenth of a second that it takes for the next page to load.
Slashdotters seem to have an irrational hatred for multi-page articles, but with AdBlock I'd rather have multiple pages than no formatting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956806</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257165480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd put cloud computing as today's king of overhype. "We're going to save a ton of money by moving the processing power from here... to there!" I get that it's "supposed" to be more efficient. But you still have to pay for the all the processing power you get, and whatever slight discount you might get from buying in bulk is probably going to be offset by the fact that you have to spend MORE on getting a completely separate input/output device capable of connecting to the cloud in the first place.<br>"But, they'll be managed by professional I.T. guys instead of idiot end users!" Yeah, because giant server farms are never attacked, or compromised. Not to mention the fact that you now have to pay for the server guys managing it. Then comes the bandwidth costs. Just imagine how much bandwidth running simple OS procedures off the cloud would cost. That you'd have to have connections with incredibly low latency is already going to put the costs at astronomical and yet their are people really expecting they can run gaming of all things off the cloud. Assuming all the technical hurdles just disappeared you're really talking about running a constant, super low latency video stream at at least 30fps with an entirely separate input stream for hours on end. You're talking about running expensive, game worthy hardware (because one of the "highlights" of running off the cloud is everyone can have all the games with super fancy graphics), trying to get game developers and publishers to agree to an entirely new pricing structure (and yet somehow claiming that games will be cheaper for consumers, because price equilibrium doesn't exist!) and to top it all off people won't even get to own the games they buy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd put cloud computing as today 's king of overhype .
" We 're going to save a ton of money by moving the processing power from here... to there !
" I get that it 's " supposed " to be more efficient .
But you still have to pay for the all the processing power you get , and whatever slight discount you might get from buying in bulk is probably going to be offset by the fact that you have to spend MORE on getting a completely separate input/output device capable of connecting to the cloud in the first place .
" But , they 'll be managed by professional I.T .
guys instead of idiot end users !
" Yeah , because giant server farms are never attacked , or compromised .
Not to mention the fact that you now have to pay for the server guys managing it .
Then comes the bandwidth costs .
Just imagine how much bandwidth running simple OS procedures off the cloud would cost .
That you 'd have to have connections with incredibly low latency is already going to put the costs at astronomical and yet their are people really expecting they can run gaming of all things off the cloud .
Assuming all the technical hurdles just disappeared you 're really talking about running a constant , super low latency video stream at at least 30fps with an entirely separate input stream for hours on end .
You 're talking about running expensive , game worthy hardware ( because one of the " highlights " of running off the cloud is everyone can have all the games with super fancy graphics ) , trying to get game developers and publishers to agree to an entirely new pricing structure ( and yet somehow claiming that games will be cheaper for consumers , because price equilibrium does n't exist !
) and to top it all off people wo n't even get to own the games they buy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd put cloud computing as today's king of overhype.
"We're going to save a ton of money by moving the processing power from here... to there!
" I get that it's "supposed" to be more efficient.
But you still have to pay for the all the processing power you get, and whatever slight discount you might get from buying in bulk is probably going to be offset by the fact that you have to spend MORE on getting a completely separate input/output device capable of connecting to the cloud in the first place.
"But, they'll be managed by professional I.T.
guys instead of idiot end users!
" Yeah, because giant server farms are never attacked, or compromised.
Not to mention the fact that you now have to pay for the server guys managing it.
Then comes the bandwidth costs.
Just imagine how much bandwidth running simple OS procedures off the cloud would cost.
That you'd have to have connections with incredibly low latency is already going to put the costs at astronomical and yet their are people really expecting they can run gaming of all things off the cloud.
Assuming all the technical hurdles just disappeared you're really talking about running a constant, super low latency video stream at at least 30fps with an entirely separate input stream for hours on end.
You're talking about running expensive, game worthy hardware (because one of the "highlights" of running off the cloud is everyone can have all the games with super fancy graphics), trying to get game developers and publishers to agree to an entirely new pricing structure (and yet somehow claiming that games will be cheaper for consumers, because price equilibrium doesn't exist!
) and to top it all off people won't even get to own the games they buy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954592</id>
	<title>Add OOAD, UML and Agile into the pile</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1257154560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please add OOAD, UML and Agile into the pile.<br>While all of these approaches worked somehow none of them has delivered a panacea methodology for programming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please add OOAD , UML and Agile into the pile.While all of these approaches worked somehow none of them has delivered a panacea methodology for programming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please add OOAD, UML and Agile into the pile.While all of these approaches worked somehow none of them has delivered a panacea methodology for programming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956078</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.   And on top of what you have said - if anyone does achieve "true" artificial intelligence then nobody would want it, because it will include all the traits that we so desperately want to eliminate.  Eg:  machines will have to start becoming inaccurate, emotional, imaginative, needy etc. as these are all fundamental to our "intelligence" as humans.  Should anyone every actually achieve this we will quickly classify it as a useless curiosity and go back to pursuing more reliable "mechanical" goals that we will naturally refuse to classify as AI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
And on top of what you have said - if anyone does achieve " true " artificial intelligence then nobody would want it , because it will include all the traits that we so desperately want to eliminate .
Eg : machines will have to start becoming inaccurate , emotional , imaginative , needy etc .
as these are all fundamental to our " intelligence " as humans .
Should anyone every actually achieve this we will quickly classify it as a useless curiosity and go back to pursuing more reliable " mechanical " goals that we will naturally refuse to classify as AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
And on top of what you have said - if anyone does achieve "true" artificial intelligence then nobody would want it, because it will include all the traits that we so desperately want to eliminate.
Eg:  machines will have to start becoming inaccurate, emotional, imaginative, needy etc.
as these are all fundamental to our "intelligence" as humans.
Should anyone every actually achieve this we will quickly classify it as a useless curiosity and go back to pursuing more reliable "mechanical" goals that we will naturally refuse to classify as AI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956452</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1257163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://singularityhub.com/2009/10/09/music-created-by-learning-computer-getting-better/" title="singularityhub.com" rel="nofollow">
Music Created by Learning Computer Getting Better</a> [singularityhub.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music Created by Learning Computer Getting Better [ singularityhub.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Music Created by Learning Computer Getting Better [singularityhub.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954786</id>
	<title>CASE silliness</title>
	<author>deuterium</author>
	<datestamp>1257155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading about CASE tools in my first CS class. The idea was that software would be generated automatically, diminishing the need for programmers. From minute one this made no sense to me. Sure, there's off-the-shelf software, but for anything else, you still need to tell the computer <b>in some way</b> what/where the input is, what to do with it, how it affects other processes, how to return the data, etc. In short, you just push off programming at one level to programming at a different level. It's a false savings. People really seemed to believe that software would start writing itself, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading about CASE tools in my first CS class .
The idea was that software would be generated automatically , diminishing the need for programmers .
From minute one this made no sense to me .
Sure , there 's off-the-shelf software , but for anything else , you still need to tell the computer in some way what/where the input is , what to do with it , how it affects other processes , how to return the data , etc .
In short , you just push off programming at one level to programming at a different level .
It 's a false savings .
People really seemed to believe that software would start writing itself , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading about CASE tools in my first CS class.
The idea was that software would be generated automatically, diminishing the need for programmers.
From minute one this made no sense to me.
Sure, there's off-the-shelf software, but for anything else, you still need to tell the computer in some way what/where the input is, what to do with it, how it affects other processes, how to return the data, etc.
In short, you just push off programming at one level to programming at a different level.
It's a false savings.
People really seemed to believe that software would start writing itself, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952830</id>
	<title>There is just one Myth.</title>
	<author>cybergrue</author>
	<datestamp>1257189960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It arises when the salesman tell the clueless management that <b>"This product will solve all your problems!"</b> <p>
Bonus points if the salesman admits that he doesn't need to know your problems before selling it to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It arises when the salesman tell the clueless management that " This product will solve all your problems !
" Bonus points if the salesman admits that he does n't need to know your problems before selling it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It arises when the salesman tell the clueless management that "This product will solve all your problems!
" 
Bonus points if the salesman admits that he doesn't need to know your problems before selling it to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954704</id>
	<title>Re:It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>Dr.Dubious DDQ</author>
	<datestamp>1257155100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait. "</i> <br>
Incorrect!  In fact Microsoft&reg; has had "I'm afraid I can't let you do that" technology in place for at least a decade!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you 're looking for HAL , you have another 2001 years to wait .
" Incorrect !
In fact Microsoft   has had " I 'm afraid I ca n't let you do that " technology in place for at least a decade !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait.
" 
Incorrect!
In fact Microsoft® has had "I'm afraid I can't let you do that" technology in place for at least a decade!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952868</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257190260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown. At this point it's impossible to tell which claims will bear fruit, and which will fall to the earth and rot.</p> </div><p>I agree with your post (not the article) - these technologies have all had success in the experimental fields in which they've been applied. but ESPECIALLY virtualization, which is way past experimenting and is starting to become so big in the workplace that I've started using it at home. No need to setup a dual boot with virtualization, and the risk of losing data is virtually removed (pun intended) because anytime the virtual machine gets infected you just overwrite it with yesterdays backup. No need to set up dual boots through the BIOS (for those who are scared to venture there).</p><p>I have yet to find an application of Virtualization that has failed to do what it promised.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , cloud computing , virtualization , and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown .
At this point it 's impossible to tell which claims will bear fruit , and which will fall to the earth and rot .
I agree with your post ( not the article ) - these technologies have all had success in the experimental fields in which they 've been applied .
but ESPECIALLY virtualization , which is way past experimenting and is starting to become so big in the workplace that I 've started using it at home .
No need to setup a dual boot with virtualization , and the risk of losing data is virtually removed ( pun intended ) because anytime the virtual machine gets infected you just overwrite it with yesterdays backup .
No need to set up dual boots through the BIOS ( for those who are scared to venture there ) .I have yet to find an application of Virtualization that has failed to do what it promised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown.
At this point it's impossible to tell which claims will bear fruit, and which will fall to the earth and rot.
I agree with your post (not the article) - these technologies have all had success in the experimental fields in which they've been applied.
but ESPECIALLY virtualization, which is way past experimenting and is starting to become so big in the workplace that I've started using it at home.
No need to setup a dual boot with virtualization, and the risk of losing data is virtually removed (pun intended) because anytime the virtual machine gets infected you just overwrite it with yesterdays backup.
No need to set up dual boots through the BIOS (for those who are scared to venture there).I have yet to find an application of Virtualization that has failed to do what it promised.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952976</id>
	<title>Virtualization is not bunk.</title>
	<author>E. Edward Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know of a single IT department that hasn't been helped by virtualization of servers.  It makes more efficient use of purchased hardware, keeps businesses from some of the manipulations to which their hardware and OS vendors can subject them, and is (in the long term) cheaper to operate than a traditional datacenter.  IT departments have wondered for a long time: "if I have all this processing power, memory, and storage, why can't I use all of it?"  Virtualization answers that question, and does it in an elegant way, so I don't consider it snake oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know of a single IT department that has n't been helped by virtualization of servers .
It makes more efficient use of purchased hardware , keeps businesses from some of the manipulations to which their hardware and OS vendors can subject them , and is ( in the long term ) cheaper to operate than a traditional datacenter .
IT departments have wondered for a long time : " if I have all this processing power , memory , and storage , why ca n't I use all of it ?
" Virtualization answers that question , and does it in an elegant way , so I do n't consider it snake oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know of a single IT department that hasn't been helped by virtualization of servers.
It makes more efficient use of purchased hardware, keeps businesses from some of the manipulations to which their hardware and OS vendors can subject them, and is (in the long term) cheaper to operate than a traditional datacenter.
IT departments have wondered for a long time: "if I have all this processing power, memory, and storage, why can't I use all of it?
"  Virtualization answers that question, and does it in an elegant way, so I don't consider it snake oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963868</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's 100\% true that intelligence, the act of thought is a process in our minds that can be recreated in a mechanical manner, especially using computers.</p><p>I agree that we are not advanced at all in the process of AI and I think the first important steps in creating true AI is understanding the human brain better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 100 \ % true that intelligence , the act of thought is a process in our minds that can be recreated in a mechanical manner , especially using computers.I agree that we are not advanced at all in the process of AI and I think the first important steps in creating true AI is understanding the human brain better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 100\% true that intelligence, the act of thought is a process in our minds that can be recreated in a mechanical manner, especially using computers.I agree that we are not advanced at all in the process of AI and I think the first important steps in creating true AI is understanding the human brain better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954728</id>
	<title>Re:The crazy hottie</title>
	<author>rossz</author>
	<datestamp>1257155220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena. I won't even name the worst offenders, although the worst started with the word cable. They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds, put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses, usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches.</p></div></blockquote><p>Booth babes are the best thing about trade shows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena .
I wo n't even name the worst offenders , although the worst started with the word cable .
They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds , put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses , usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches.Booth babes are the best thing about trade shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of miss the crazy hotties that used to pervade the network sales arena.
I won't even name the worst offenders, although the worst started with the word cable.
They would go to job fairs and hire the hottest birds, put them in the shortest shirts and low cut blouses, usually white with black push-up bras - and send them in to sell you switches.Booth babes are the best thing about trade shows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953526</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.  VMWare Server (free, as in beer) on Debian doesn't cost a dime.  I have been running 6 virtrual machines (guests) on two low spec boxes (3 GHz P4, 4 GB, IDE disks) since early 2007 and they've been rock solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
VMWare Server ( free , as in beer ) on Debian does n't cost a dime .
I have been running 6 virtrual machines ( guests ) on two low spec boxes ( 3 GHz P4 , 4 GB , IDE disks ) since early 2007 and they 've been rock solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
VMWare Server (free, as in beer) on Debian doesn't cost a dime.
I have been running 6 virtrual machines (guests) on two low spec boxes (3 GHz P4, 4 GB, IDE disks) since early 2007 and they've been rock solid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952958</id>
	<title>Re:ERP?</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1257190620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fundamental problem with ERP systems is that they are integrated and implemented by the second tier of folks in the engineering pecking order.  Couple that fact with an aggressive sales force that would sell ice to eskimos and you've got a straight road to expensive failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with ERP systems is that they are integrated and implemented by the second tier of folks in the engineering pecking order .
Couple that fact with an aggressive sales force that would sell ice to eskimos and you 've got a straight road to expensive failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with ERP systems is that they are integrated and implemented by the second tier of folks in the engineering pecking order.
Couple that fact with an aggressive sales force that would sell ice to eskimos and you've got a straight road to expensive failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953616</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1257193560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It saved us from having to do a $1M datacenter upgrade so yeah, I'd say it benefited us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It saved us from having to do a $ 1M datacenter upgrade so yeah , I 'd say it benefited us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It saved us from having to do a $1M datacenter upgrade so yeah, I'd say it benefited us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955558</id>
	<title>Pentium OverDrive</title>
	<author>The Grim Reefer2</author>
	<datestamp>1257159060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason everyone seems to forget about Intel's campaign in the mid-90's that you would never have to upgrade your computer again. Simply plug a new processor into your existing mobo. Of course the Pentium OverDrive chip was majorly delayed, way more expensive than indicated, had compatibility issues, and underperformed. And then Intel moved on to the Slot-1 processors anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason everyone seems to forget about Intel 's campaign in the mid-90 's that you would never have to upgrade your computer again .
Simply plug a new processor into your existing mobo .
Of course the Pentium OverDrive chip was majorly delayed , way more expensive than indicated , had compatibility issues , and underperformed .
And then Intel moved on to the Slot-1 processors anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason everyone seems to forget about Intel's campaign in the mid-90's that you would never have to upgrade your computer again.
Simply plug a new processor into your existing mobo.
Of course the Pentium OverDrive chip was majorly delayed, way more expensive than indicated, had compatibility issues, and underperformed.
And then Intel moved on to the Slot-1 processors anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954838</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257155580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience is that of the article. I've yet to see a ERP system that was:<br>1) Easier than doing things the older way<br>2) Used by more than a tiny fraction of the workplace</p><p>I'm sure they exist, but I've sure never seen one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience is that of the article .
I 've yet to see a ERP system that was : 1 ) Easier than doing things the older way2 ) Used by more than a tiny fraction of the workplaceI 'm sure they exist , but I 've sure never seen one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience is that of the article.
I've yet to see a ERP system that was:1) Easier than doing things the older way2) Used by more than a tiny fraction of the workplaceI'm sure they exist, but I've sure never seen one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955278</id>
	<title>Re:The crazy hottie</title>
	<author>q2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257157680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huge amounts of skimming. I worked for one of the big telcos back in the day. The managers got paid their bonuses on self-reported revenue. The simply made up whatever sales they needed on the last day of the quarter to hit quota, and cashed the bonus check. The fact that those sales never actually materialized never seemed to bother anybody. At the national sales meeting they said about 10\% of the reported sales ever showed us as revenue. Of course, the company had just lost billions and there were 2500 of us at a sales meeting in Vegas, so the problems were systematic.</p><p>Also a lot of "buy my switches/software/servers and I'll make sure you get some IPO stock" back in the late 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huge amounts of skimming .
I worked for one of the big telcos back in the day .
The managers got paid their bonuses on self-reported revenue .
The simply made up whatever sales they needed on the last day of the quarter to hit quota , and cashed the bonus check .
The fact that those sales never actually materialized never seemed to bother anybody .
At the national sales meeting they said about 10 \ % of the reported sales ever showed us as revenue .
Of course , the company had just lost billions and there were 2500 of us at a sales meeting in Vegas , so the problems were systematic.Also a lot of " buy my switches/software/servers and I 'll make sure you get some IPO stock " back in the late 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huge amounts of skimming.
I worked for one of the big telcos back in the day.
The managers got paid their bonuses on self-reported revenue.
The simply made up whatever sales they needed on the last day of the quarter to hit quota, and cashed the bonus check.
The fact that those sales never actually materialized never seemed to bother anybody.
At the national sales meeting they said about 10\% of the reported sales ever showed us as revenue.
Of course, the company had just lost billions and there were 2500 of us at a sales meeting in Vegas, so the problems were systematic.Also a lot of "buy my switches/software/servers and I'll make sure you get some IPO stock" back in the late 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953920</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1257194760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. There are some real benefits for smaller companies who can afford to virtualize, more or less depending on the types of applications. Yes, I can buy one server to run any number of business critical applications, but I've seen, in most cases, that several applications are independently business critical and needed to be available at least for the full business day or some important aspect of the company was shut down. So while a single virtual server running everything sucks, you really can get a very close effect when only one of those servers you listed above fails. Add in a VM solution with two servers running VMWare with vmotion and you can get load balancing and fault tolerance. My experience is in the financial services industry. A small company doesn't have a ton of cash to throw around, but having new applications stop for a day while you try to get your single server back up and running costs a lot more than a couple more tens of thousands of dollars to buy a fault tolerant solution. Virtualization is perfect for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
There are some real benefits for smaller companies who can afford to virtualize , more or less depending on the types of applications .
Yes , I can buy one server to run any number of business critical applications , but I 've seen , in most cases , that several applications are independently business critical and needed to be available at least for the full business day or some important aspect of the company was shut down .
So while a single virtual server running everything sucks , you really can get a very close effect when only one of those servers you listed above fails .
Add in a VM solution with two servers running VMWare with vmotion and you can get load balancing and fault tolerance .
My experience is in the financial services industry .
A small company does n't have a ton of cash to throw around , but having new applications stop for a day while you try to get your single server back up and running costs a lot more than a couple more tens of thousands of dollars to buy a fault tolerant solution .
Virtualization is perfect for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
There are some real benefits for smaller companies who can afford to virtualize, more or less depending on the types of applications.
Yes, I can buy one server to run any number of business critical applications, but I've seen, in most cases, that several applications are independently business critical and needed to be available at least for the full business day or some important aspect of the company was shut down.
So while a single virtual server running everything sucks, you really can get a very close effect when only one of those servers you listed above fails.
Add in a VM solution with two servers running VMWare with vmotion and you can get load balancing and fault tolerance.
My experience is in the financial services industry.
A small company doesn't have a ton of cash to throw around, but having new applications stop for a day while you try to get your single server back up and running costs a lot more than a couple more tens of thousands of dollars to buy a fault tolerant solution.
Virtualization is perfect for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29971150</id>
	<title>B2B electronic transactions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, why would any company go for automated computing wheeling and dealing for the best price?  If you do that where are the kickbacks, special trips and perks from the vendors?  Everyone talks about wanting to cut out that sort of thing, but it never gets around to being fixed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , why would any company go for automated computing wheeling and dealing for the best price ?
If you do that where are the kickbacks , special trips and perks from the vendors ?
Everyone talks about wanting to cut out that sort of thing , but it never gets around to being fixed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, why would any company go for automated computing wheeling and dealing for the best price?
If you do that where are the kickbacks, special trips and perks from the vendors?
Everyone talks about wanting to cut out that sort of thing, but it never gets around to being fixed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953276</id>
	<title>Incredible labor saving devices</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257192180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Incredible labor saving devices of the future!  Vacuum Cleaner salesmen would always say they were labor saving devices.  They are actually \_more\_ work than sweeping with a broom, but the end result is cleaner (brooms just move dust around).  Of course, telling a PHB that the virtual environment will cost more in hardware and manpower but will be 3x as good doesn't win points.  PHB only wants reduction in cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Incredible labor saving devices of the future !
Vacuum Cleaner salesmen would always say they were labor saving devices .
They are actually \ _more \ _ work than sweeping with a broom , but the end result is cleaner ( brooms just move dust around ) .
Of course , telling a PHB that the virtual environment will cost more in hardware and manpower but will be 3x as good does n't win points .
PHB only wants reduction in cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incredible labor saving devices of the future!
Vacuum Cleaner salesmen would always say they were labor saving devices.
They are actually \_more\_ work than sweeping with a broom, but the end result is cleaner (brooms just move dust around).
Of course, telling a PHB that the virtual environment will cost more in hardware and manpower but will be 3x as good doesn't win points.
PHB only wants reduction in cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956448</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>FormOfActionBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1257163320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot fails on both counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot fails on both counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot fails on both counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961968</id>
	<title>Why rabbit may never catch turtle</title>
	<author>dee.cz</author>
	<datestamp>1257252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rabbit advances closer to the turtle but he is still not at the same position. Then he advances smaller bit, but he is still not there.
<br>And this is why AI may never exist... oh really?
<br>
<br>
Of course there will be strong AI and there will be people refusing to acknowledge they lost top position in evolution of intelligence. When machines start treating us like we treat less intelligent animals, I'm sure some people will loudly complain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rabbit advances closer to the turtle but he is still not at the same position .
Then he advances smaller bit , but he is still not there .
And this is why AI may never exist... oh really ?
Of course there will be strong AI and there will be people refusing to acknowledge they lost top position in evolution of intelligence .
When machines start treating us like we treat less intelligent animals , I 'm sure some people will loudly complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rabbit advances closer to the turtle but he is still not at the same position.
Then he advances smaller bit, but he is still not there.
And this is why AI may never exist... oh really?
Of course there will be strong AI and there will be people refusing to acknowledge they lost top position in evolution of intelligence.
When machines start treating us like we treat less intelligent animals, I'm sure some people will loudly complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956024</id>
	<title>Book Publishers</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257161040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Book publishers just love such fads. If not for fads, people just buy 5-year-old used books from Amazon and no new books are printed. I'm planning on soon releasing my book, <b> <i>"Enterprise Web 2.0 Agile Security with XML and Java.NET in Seven Days Super-Bible Unleashed for Complete Head-First Idiots &amp; Dummies"</i> </b>.</p><p>I don't know what's gonna be in it yet, but I know it will sell.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Book publishers just love such fads .
If not for fads , people just buy 5-year-old used books from Amazon and no new books are printed .
I 'm planning on soon releasing my book , " Enterprise Web 2.0 Agile Security with XML and Java.NET in Seven Days Super-Bible Unleashed for Complete Head-First Idiots &amp; Dummies " .I do n't know what 's gon na be in it yet , but I know it will sell .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Book publishers just love such fads.
If not for fads, people just buy 5-year-old used books from Amazon and no new books are printed.
I'm planning on soon releasing my book,  "Enterprise Web 2.0 Agile Security with XML and Java.NET in Seven Days Super-Bible Unleashed for Complete Head-First Idiots &amp; Dummies" .I don't know what's gonna be in it yet, but I know it will sell.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960392</id>
	<title>That's a far too micro view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure that our habit of redefining intelligence (computationally) is an argument that we will never surpass human ability (computationally).</p><p>In the unknown future, when the sum total of human faculties are expressed as algorithms, and there is no residual uniquely human talent, and we are surpassed in every mental endeavour by better hardware and software, your argument will simply illustrate that we were never 'intelligent' in the first place.</p><p>You don't find any pause in the fact that 'auto'-motive power was comprehensively dismissed as infeasible in the days of the horse-drawn carriage, or that space flight was an impossibility until it happened?</p><p>-- Joe Fazzari (Anonymous Coward without a slashdot account)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that our habit of redefining intelligence ( computationally ) is an argument that we will never surpass human ability ( computationally ) .In the unknown future , when the sum total of human faculties are expressed as algorithms , and there is no residual uniquely human talent , and we are surpassed in every mental endeavour by better hardware and software , your argument will simply illustrate that we were never 'intelligent ' in the first place.You do n't find any pause in the fact that 'auto'-motive power was comprehensively dismissed as infeasible in the days of the horse-drawn carriage , or that space flight was an impossibility until it happened ? -- Joe Fazzari ( Anonymous Coward without a slashdot account )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that our habit of redefining intelligence (computationally) is an argument that we will never surpass human ability (computationally).In the unknown future, when the sum total of human faculties are expressed as algorithms, and there is no residual uniquely human talent, and we are surpassed in every mental endeavour by better hardware and software, your argument will simply illustrate that we were never 'intelligent' in the first place.You don't find any pause in the fact that 'auto'-motive power was comprehensively dismissed as infeasible in the days of the horse-drawn carriage, or that space flight was an impossibility until it happened?-- Joe Fazzari (Anonymous Coward without a slashdot account)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956102</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257161400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just when they invent <b>flying cars</b> to commute to work, AI robots will take your job away anyhow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just when they invent flying cars to commute to work , AI robots will take your job away anyhow : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just when they invent flying cars to commute to work, AI robots will take your job away anyhow :-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959856</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right. You'll change your mind once they get smart enough to argue successfully with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
You 'll change your mind once they get smart enough to argue successfully with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
You'll change your mind once they get smart enough to argue successfully with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954344</id>
	<title>Re:Fake quote in technology #1</title>
	<author>Intron</author>
	<datestamp>1257153420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2002/74-2002-present-technology-information-and-society/118-dr-daniel-hillis.html" title="dandavidprize.org">A few observations by Dr. Daniel Hillis:</a> [dandavidprize.org]</p><p>"Building a thinking machine has always been a personal dream of mine, and my conception of the Connection Machine was part of that. I like to say I want to make a computer that will be proud of me."</p><p>"I'd like to find a way for consciousness to transcend human flesh. Building a thinking machine is really a search for a kind of Earthly immortality. Something much more intelligent than we can exist. Making a thinking machine is my way to reach out to that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few observations by Dr. Daniel Hillis : [ dandavidprize.org ] " Building a thinking machine has always been a personal dream of mine , and my conception of the Connection Machine was part of that .
I like to say I want to make a computer that will be proud of me .
" " I 'd like to find a way for consciousness to transcend human flesh .
Building a thinking machine is really a search for a kind of Earthly immortality .
Something much more intelligent than we can exist .
Making a thinking machine is my way to reach out to that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few observations by Dr. Daniel Hillis: [dandavidprize.org]"Building a thinking machine has always been a personal dream of mine, and my conception of the Connection Machine was part of that.
I like to say I want to make a computer that will be proud of me.
""I'd like to find a way for consciousness to transcend human flesh.
Building a thinking machine is really a search for a kind of Earthly immortality.
Something much more intelligent than we can exist.
Making a thinking machine is my way to reach out to that.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956500</id>
	<title>to present is good</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1257163680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My bosses are absolutely convinced that thin client technology instead of laptops will cut down on connection costs.<br>
Their 'reasoning' is too bizarre to get around so all I can do is document that adding more connections 'probably' will not cut down on the company's connection costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My bosses are absolutely convinced that thin client technology instead of laptops will cut down on connection costs .
Their 'reasoning ' is too bizarre to get around so all I can do is document that adding more connections 'probably ' will not cut down on the company 's connection costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bosses are absolutely convinced that thin client technology instead of laptops will cut down on connection costs.
Their 'reasoning' is too bizarre to get around so all I can do is document that adding more connections 'probably' will not cut down on the company's connection costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958452</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Tracy Reed</author>
	<datestamp>1257173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perl sure, but Prolog? A common programming language?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , now some of our common programming languages ( perl , prolog , etc .
) include such tables as basic data types , and the programmers use them routinely.Perl sure , but Prolog ?
A common programming language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.
) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely.Perl sure, but Prolog?
A common programming language?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955126</id>
	<title>Re:I call BS on this story</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257157200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Artificial intelligence" - what's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox? How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you? Ever gotten directions from Google Maps?</p></div></blockquote><p>All just (weighted) statistical analysis.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Computer-aided software engineering" - tools like valgrind, findbugs, fuzzing tools for finding security problems.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're simply redefining the term into something that exists...  CASE is a program which takes your high-level specifications and writes working programs for you.  None of these testing/debugging tools does anything remotely similar.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Thin clients" - ever heard of a "Web Browser"?</p></div></blockquote><p>A web browser is, by far, the FATTEST application running on my PC.  For two orders of magnitude more CPU and memory usage, I can check my e-mails through a slow, lagging, and clumsy web interface, instead of running a small, fast, user-friendly MUA, as we all were 10, 20, 30+ years ago.   What a time to be alive!</p><p>Besides, as always, internet apps continue to be gimmicks.  Before anyone chimes-in, yes, Google Maps is okay, but (A) the interface doesn't work any faster or better than mapquest and (B) if someone, ANYONE would have provided a free mapping application which could be run locally, Google maps wouldn't have attracted any interest.  Nobody got around to providing free (ad-supported) map applications before.  And notice that Google Earth is a normal application and not web-based.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Enterprise social media" - That really describes most of the Internet</p></div></blockquote><p>No, "social media" describes most of the internet.  "Enterprise social media" describes a very different product, which never caught on.</p><p>Or perhaps I should say:<br>"Giant armored exploding cars" - That really describes most everything on the roads.  Right???  Right???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Artificial intelligence " - what 's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox ?
How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you ?
Ever gotten directions from Google Maps ? All just ( weighted ) statistical analysis .
" Computer-aided software engineering " - tools like valgrind , findbugs , fuzzing tools for finding security problems.You 're simply redefining the term into something that exists... CASE is a program which takes your high-level specifications and writes working programs for you .
None of these testing/debugging tools does anything remotely similar .
" Thin clients " - ever heard of a " Web Browser " ? A web browser is , by far , the FATTEST application running on my PC .
For two orders of magnitude more CPU and memory usage , I can check my e-mails through a slow , lagging , and clumsy web interface , instead of running a small , fast , user-friendly MUA , as we all were 10 , 20 , 30 + years ago .
What a time to be alive ! Besides , as always , internet apps continue to be gimmicks .
Before anyone chimes-in , yes , Google Maps is okay , but ( A ) the interface does n't work any faster or better than mapquest and ( B ) if someone , ANYONE would have provided a free mapping application which could be run locally , Google maps would n't have attracted any interest .
Nobody got around to providing free ( ad-supported ) map applications before .
And notice that Google Earth is a normal application and not web-based .
" Enterprise social media " - That really describes most of the InternetNo , " social media " describes most of the internet .
" Enterprise social media " describes a very different product , which never caught on.Or perhaps I should say : " Giant armored exploding cars " - That really describes most everything on the roads .
Right ? ? ? Right ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Artificial intelligence" - what's keeping the spam out of YOUR inbox?
How does Netflix decide what to recommend to you?
Ever gotten directions from Google Maps?All just (weighted) statistical analysis.
"Computer-aided software engineering" - tools like valgrind, findbugs, fuzzing tools for finding security problems.You're simply redefining the term into something that exists...  CASE is a program which takes your high-level specifications and writes working programs for you.
None of these testing/debugging tools does anything remotely similar.
"Thin clients" - ever heard of a "Web Browser"?A web browser is, by far, the FATTEST application running on my PC.
For two orders of magnitude more CPU and memory usage, I can check my e-mails through a slow, lagging, and clumsy web interface, instead of running a small, fast, user-friendly MUA, as we all were 10, 20, 30+ years ago.
What a time to be alive!Besides, as always, internet apps continue to be gimmicks.
Before anyone chimes-in, yes, Google Maps is okay, but (A) the interface doesn't work any faster or better than mapquest and (B) if someone, ANYONE would have provided a free mapping application which could be run locally, Google maps wouldn't have attracted any interest.
Nobody got around to providing free (ad-supported) map applications before.
And notice that Google Earth is a normal application and not web-based.
"Enterprise social media" - That really describes most of the InternetNo, "social media" describes most of the internet.
"Enterprise social media" describes a very different product, which never caught on.Or perhaps I should say:"Giant armored exploding cars" - That really describes most everything on the roads.
Right???  Right??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953350</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing?</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1257192420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only hype if you don't understand why you'd use it.</p><p>You're building a website for example; you think it *might* become highly popular &amp; high bandwidth. Normally you'd have two options; 1, invest in a tonne of infrastructure just in case and risk hugely over investing in nothing; 2, don't bother and risk collapsing under strain of hugely underestimating traffic demands.</p><p>Well, cloud computing takes that worry off your shoulders. If your app needs more "cloud"; you can give it extra juice in minutes without any interruption to service. In azure anyway it's just an XML file change - "instance count" to add/remove more/less VMs to your collection. Insane amounts of processing horsepower if you want; nay if you have the cash to match it you can have thousands of servers at your command without even restarting the app. That's value, and it doesn't even take much to "cloudify" an app either.</p><p>Yes it costs more to feed it more processing, but you know you only pay for what you need at any time.</p><p>So no; cloud computing isn't perfect or for everyone; but it certainly has its' place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only hype if you do n't understand why you 'd use it.You 're building a website for example ; you think it * might * become highly popular &amp; high bandwidth .
Normally you 'd have two options ; 1 , invest in a tonne of infrastructure just in case and risk hugely over investing in nothing ; 2 , do n't bother and risk collapsing under strain of hugely underestimating traffic demands.Well , cloud computing takes that worry off your shoulders .
If your app needs more " cloud " ; you can give it extra juice in minutes without any interruption to service .
In azure anyway it 's just an XML file change - " instance count " to add/remove more/less VMs to your collection .
Insane amounts of processing horsepower if you want ; nay if you have the cash to match it you can have thousands of servers at your command without even restarting the app .
That 's value , and it does n't even take much to " cloudify " an app either.Yes it costs more to feed it more processing , but you know you only pay for what you need at any time.So no ; cloud computing is n't perfect or for everyone ; but it certainly has its ' place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only hype if you don't understand why you'd use it.You're building a website for example; you think it *might* become highly popular &amp; high bandwidth.
Normally you'd have two options; 1, invest in a tonne of infrastructure just in case and risk hugely over investing in nothing; 2, don't bother and risk collapsing under strain of hugely underestimating traffic demands.Well, cloud computing takes that worry off your shoulders.
If your app needs more "cloud"; you can give it extra juice in minutes without any interruption to service.
In azure anyway it's just an XML file change - "instance count" to add/remove more/less VMs to your collection.
Insane amounts of processing horsepower if you want; nay if you have the cash to match it you can have thousands of servers at your command without even restarting the app.
That's value, and it doesn't even take much to "cloudify" an app either.Yes it costs more to feed it more processing, but you know you only pay for what you need at any time.So no; cloud computing isn't perfect or for everyone; but it certainly has its' place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952902</id>
	<title>No substitute</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1257190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
     Listening to the Willy Lomans of the world is no substitute for insight and understanding.   As Plato might have put it, either the managers had better understand technology or the techies get to manage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Listening to the Willy Lomans of the world is no substitute for insight and understanding .
As Plato might have put it , either the managers had better understand technology or the techies get to manage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
     Listening to the Willy Lomans of the world is no substitute for insight and understanding.
As Plato might have put it, either the managers had better understand technology or the techies get to manage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958144</id>
	<title>Re:It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>pinkj</author>
	<datestamp>1257171780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.</p></div><p>
<a href="http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/" title="nlp-addiction.com" rel="nofollow">Hello, I am Eliza.</a> [nlp-addiction.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , AI works and is a very strong technology , but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them .
Hello , I am Eliza .
[ nlp-addiction.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.
Hello, I am Eliza.
[nlp-addiction.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953110</id>
	<title>AI done poorly</title>
	<author>jspenguin1</author>
	<datestamp>1257191400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No,\_We\_Need\_a\_Neural\_Network.aspx" title="thedailywtf.com" rel="nofollow">Artificial intelligence at its worst.</a> [thedailywtf.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artificial intelligence at its worst .
[ thedailywtf.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artificial intelligence at its worst.
[thedailywtf.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965674</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1257273600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're talking about Artificial Ignorance.  When you leave consciousness out of the equation, you will never get the answer.  True Artificial Intelligence will involve biocomputing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about Artificial Ignorance .
When you leave consciousness out of the equation , you will never get the answer .
True Artificial Intelligence will involve biocomputing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about Artificial Ignorance.
When you leave consciousness out of the equation, you will never get the answer.
True Artificial Intelligence will involve biocomputing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955572</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One guy IT shop here.  Walked into an environment with aging servers and little to no redundancy/backup/business continuity/disaster recovery plan.  I had a small budget worked out by my predecessor (35K) to replace the email system that included purchasing two servers.  I took that budget and implemented a virtualization/iSCSI storage/email/AD update project that put +75\% of our 15 servers into a virtualized environment that supports machines going down and has redundancy.</p><p>Next year I'll be adding another host for capacity and replicating data to a remote office for disaster recovery.  I didn't use the top of the line storage and have all the bells and whistles from VMWare but it works and it works well for the money I've spent.</p><p>There's a definite benefit to running virtualized servers with centralized storage even for businesses with 5-6 servers.  You don't have to have a super-server to handle separate servers hosting AD/DNS/DHCP, email for 60 people, small business accounting systems, small databases, and a file server.  It is nice that those environments don't live in the same OS space.  Also, if you're building a 1 host virtualized environment you're asking for trouble but a two host environment for a small business could easily support up to 8 to 10 machines with failover redundancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One guy IT shop here .
Walked into an environment with aging servers and little to no redundancy/backup/business continuity/disaster recovery plan .
I had a small budget worked out by my predecessor ( 35K ) to replace the email system that included purchasing two servers .
I took that budget and implemented a virtualization/iSCSI storage/email/AD update project that put + 75 \ % of our 15 servers into a virtualized environment that supports machines going down and has redundancy.Next year I 'll be adding another host for capacity and replicating data to a remote office for disaster recovery .
I did n't use the top of the line storage and have all the bells and whistles from VMWare but it works and it works well for the money I 've spent.There 's a definite benefit to running virtualized servers with centralized storage even for businesses with 5-6 servers .
You do n't have to have a super-server to handle separate servers hosting AD/DNS/DHCP , email for 60 people , small business accounting systems , small databases , and a file server .
It is nice that those environments do n't live in the same OS space .
Also , if you 're building a 1 host virtualized environment you 're asking for trouble but a two host environment for a small business could easily support up to 8 to 10 machines with failover redundancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One guy IT shop here.
Walked into an environment with aging servers and little to no redundancy/backup/business continuity/disaster recovery plan.
I had a small budget worked out by my predecessor (35K) to replace the email system that included purchasing two servers.
I took that budget and implemented a virtualization/iSCSI storage/email/AD update project that put +75\% of our 15 servers into a virtualized environment that supports machines going down and has redundancy.Next year I'll be adding another host for capacity and replicating data to a remote office for disaster recovery.
I didn't use the top of the line storage and have all the bells and whistles from VMWare but it works and it works well for the money I've spent.There's a definite benefit to running virtualized servers with centralized storage even for businesses with 5-6 servers.
You don't have to have a super-server to handle separate servers hosting AD/DNS/DHCP, email for 60 people, small business accounting systems, small databases, and a file server.
It is nice that those environments don't live in the same OS space.
Also, if you're building a 1 host virtualized environment you're asking for trouble but a two host environment for a small business could easily support up to 8 to 10 machines with failover redundancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955502</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1257158820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say that.  I'm an admin at a smaller company.  I virtualized a few servers just using Microsoft Virtual Server.  It didn't take too much of my time.  They are using older servers that have questionable reliability.  I back up the Virtual Servers to a NAS box.  Just a few months ago I had one of the physical servers break down (Motherboard toast).  I moved a backup of the two Virtual Machines it was running onto two other servers.  Things ran slower for a few days but instead of being down for hours or day they were down for minutes.  Pretty handy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that .
I 'm an admin at a smaller company .
I virtualized a few servers just using Microsoft Virtual Server .
It did n't take too much of my time .
They are using older servers that have questionable reliability .
I back up the Virtual Servers to a NAS box .
Just a few months ago I had one of the physical servers break down ( Motherboard toast ) .
I moved a backup of the two Virtual Machines it was running onto two other servers .
Things ran slower for a few days but instead of being down for hours or day they were down for minutes .
Pretty handy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that.
I'm an admin at a smaller company.
I virtualized a few servers just using Microsoft Virtual Server.
It didn't take too much of my time.
They are using older servers that have questionable reliability.
I back up the Virtual Servers to a NAS box.
Just a few months ago I had one of the physical servers break down (Motherboard toast).
I moved a backup of the two Virtual Machines it was running onto two other servers.
Things ran slower for a few days but instead of being down for hours or day they were down for minutes.
Pretty handy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963292</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. What? I don't even want to get into the projected singularity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
What ? I do n't even want to get into the projected singularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
What? I don't even want to get into the projected singularity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960414</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>WiPEOUT</author>
	<datestamp>1257188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ironic that with respect to best practices you happened to choose "an IT bible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that spelled out procedures for running an IT shop": it's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information\_Technology\_Infrastructure\_Library" title="wikipedia.org">ITIL</a> [wikipedia.org]. Anyone in IT should make themselves familiar with it and benefit from decades of tried and tested best practices. They were true long before modern commodity technology but are still applicable. Admittedly, anyone who claimed their product is critical to any of these process-oriented best practices is spouting crap.</p><p>You've also completely missed the point with SOA: it's not about Web Services, it's about business service orientation. It's an approach that can be used to design systems that work like their organisations, promoting ownership, the lack of which can make even the most technically correct systems not just worthless but a negative influence on the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ironic that with respect to best practices you happened to choose " an IT bible ... that spelled out procedures for running an IT shop " : it 's called ITIL [ wikipedia.org ] .
Anyone in IT should make themselves familiar with it and benefit from decades of tried and tested best practices .
They were true long before modern commodity technology but are still applicable .
Admittedly , anyone who claimed their product is critical to any of these process-oriented best practices is spouting crap.You 've also completely missed the point with SOA : it 's not about Web Services , it 's about business service orientation .
It 's an approach that can be used to design systems that work like their organisations , promoting ownership , the lack of which can make even the most technically correct systems not just worthless but a negative influence on the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ironic that with respect to best practices you happened to choose "an IT bible ... that spelled out procedures for running an IT shop": it's called ITIL [wikipedia.org].
Anyone in IT should make themselves familiar with it and benefit from decades of tried and tested best practices.
They were true long before modern commodity technology but are still applicable.
Admittedly, anyone who claimed their product is critical to any of these process-oriented best practices is spouting crap.You've also completely missed the point with SOA: it's not about Web Services, it's about business service orientation.
It's an approach that can be used to design systems that work like their organisations, promoting ownership, the lack of which can make even the most technically correct systems not just worthless but a negative influence on the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953050</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>I run a small company doing hosting and development.  I have *one* server (quad-core).  I use virtualization to test my code and before system updates.</p><p>Virtualization has proven itself useful on pretty much every scale - from the smallest single-server machine right up to Google's datacentre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.I run a small company doing hosting and development .
I have * one * server ( quad-core ) .
I use virtualization to test my code and before system updates.Virtualization has proven itself useful on pretty much every scale - from the smallest single-server machine right up to Google 's datacentre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.I run a small company doing hosting and development.
I have *one* server (quad-core).
I use virtualization to test my code and before system updates.Virtualization has proven itself useful on pretty much every scale - from the smallest single-server machine right up to Google's datacentre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955672</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1257159660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"IT Best Practices." That would be the documentation for your systems detailing network maps, authorization levels, passwords, processes for managing changes to critical systems (init scripts), backups, disaster recovery, failover, etc. You mean, you don't have that written down anywhere? Oopsies. You should. If your head IT guy gets hit by a bus and dies, you need a way of letting his survivors run the network. Otherwise, it's easy to have to find that proverbial server-in-a-sealed-closet.</p><p>"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user. Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail. It's pretty dramatic. Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc. These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" IT Best Practices .
" That would be the documentation for your systems detailing network maps , authorization levels , passwords , processes for managing changes to critical systems ( init scripts ) , backups , disaster recovery , failover , etc .
You mean , you do n't have that written down anywhere ?
Oopsies. You should .
If your head IT guy gets hit by a bus and dies , you need a way of letting his survivors run the network .
Otherwise , it 's easy to have to find that proverbial server-in-a-sealed-closet .
" Web 2.0 " AJAX has been revolutionary , from my prospective as an end-user .
Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail .
It 's pretty dramatic .
Meebo , Google Docs , Google Wave , etc .
These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IT Best Practices.
" That would be the documentation for your systems detailing network maps, authorization levels, passwords, processes for managing changes to critical systems (init scripts), backups, disaster recovery, failover, etc.
You mean, you don't have that written down anywhere?
Oopsies. You should.
If your head IT guy gets hit by a bus and dies, you need a way of letting his survivors run the network.
Otherwise, it's easy to have to find that proverbial server-in-a-sealed-closet.
"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user.
Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail.
It's pretty dramatic.
Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc.
These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965612</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257273300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck you, you stupid douchebag! I completely disagree with your moronic, shit-headed, assholish point!

Dick!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you , you stupid douchebag !
I completely disagree with your moronic , shit-headed , assholish point !
Dick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you, you stupid douchebag!
I completely disagree with your moronic, shit-headed, assholish point!
Dick!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956314</id>
	<title>Re:It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1257162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.</p></div><p>When did the definition of AI change in the past 50 years? Back in 1950, everyone know what AI meant. It was C3PO. Data. Bishop. A robot that could do almost anything a human could do. <br> <br>A conversation might be a little out of the question, but surely, we thought, a robot would be able to do something as simple as walk down a hallway, like any mouse or roach can do. Or how about the simple image classification that pigeons are capable of -- classifying paintings by artists, including those it's never seen before? <br> <br>Why would one have to be an idiot for thinking that computers could, somehow, someday, be capable of doing such things? After all, animals are dumb, and can't do math or play chess or solve complex equations, but they can do a lot of things that are very difficult for computers -- like finding a trail in the woods. How is it that computers, which can do things only very intelligent and educated people can do, *can't* do things that dumb, uneducated people and animals *can* do?<br> <br>Personally, I believe they are qualitatively different problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , AI works and is a very strong technology , but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.When did the definition of AI change in the past 50 years ?
Back in 1950 , everyone know what AI meant .
It was C3PO .
Data. Bishop .
A robot that could do almost anything a human could do .
A conversation might be a little out of the question , but surely , we thought , a robot would be able to do something as simple as walk down a hallway , like any mouse or roach can do .
Or how about the simple image classification that pigeons are capable of -- classifying paintings by artists , including those it 's never seen before ?
Why would one have to be an idiot for thinking that computers could , somehow , someday , be capable of doing such things ?
After all , animals are dumb , and ca n't do math or play chess or solve complex equations , but they can do a lot of things that are very difficult for computers -- like finding a trail in the woods .
How is it that computers , which can do things only very intelligent and educated people can do , * ca n't * do things that dumb , uneducated people and animals * can * do ?
Personally , I believe they are qualitatively different problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them.When did the definition of AI change in the past 50 years?
Back in 1950, everyone know what AI meant.
It was C3PO.
Data. Bishop.
A robot that could do almost anything a human could do.
A conversation might be a little out of the question, but surely, we thought, a robot would be able to do something as simple as walk down a hallway, like any mouse or roach can do.
Or how about the simple image classification that pigeons are capable of -- classifying paintings by artists, including those it's never seen before?
Why would one have to be an idiot for thinking that computers could, somehow, someday, be capable of doing such things?
After all, animals are dumb, and can't do math or play chess or solve complex equations, but they can do a lot of things that are very difficult for computers -- like finding a trail in the woods.
How is it that computers, which can do things only very intelligent and educated people can do, *can't* do things that dumb, uneducated people and animals *can* do?
Personally, I believe they are qualitatively different problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961236</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>Imsdal</author>
	<datestamp>1257242220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user. Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail. It's pretty dramatic. Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc. These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.</p></div><p>This is setting the bar awfully low. Compare instead to full client versions of e-mail and other office applications. They are miles and miles ahead on usability. The web, great as it is, should really get a terrible mark for pulling usability 10-15 years back. It has improved, and by a lot. But it's still behind, and not closing up very quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Web 2.0 " AJAX has been revolutionary , from my prospective as an end-user .
Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail .
It 's pretty dramatic .
Meebo , Google Docs , Google Wave , etc .
These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.This is setting the bar awfully low .
Compare instead to full client versions of e-mail and other office applications .
They are miles and miles ahead on usability .
The web , great as it is , should really get a terrible mark for pulling usability 10-15 years back .
It has improved , and by a lot .
But it 's still behind , and not closing up very quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user.
Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail.
It's pretty dramatic.
Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc.
These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.This is setting the bar awfully low.
Compare instead to full client versions of e-mail and other office applications.
They are miles and miles ahead on usability.
The web, great as it is, should really get a terrible mark for pulling usability 10-15 years back.
It has improved, and by a lot.
But it's still behind, and not closing up very quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953484</id>
	<title>I doubt validity of TFA</title>
	<author>S3D</author>
	<datestamp>1257193020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA, philippic against social media:<blockquote><div><p>That's too much information. Before they know it, their scientists are talking to the competition and trade secrets are leaking out."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I don't think author has a clue. The secrets which could be accidentally spilled are not worth keeping. If it so short it bound to be trivial, really essential results are megabytes and megabytes of data or code or know-how. Treat your researcher as prisoners, get prison science in return.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , philippic against social media : That 's too much information .
Before they know it , their scientists are talking to the competition and trade secrets are leaking out .
" I do n't think author has a clue .
The secrets which could be accidentally spilled are not worth keeping .
If it so short it bound to be trivial , really essential results are megabytes and megabytes of data or code or know-how .
Treat your researcher as prisoners , get prison science in return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, philippic against social media:That's too much information.
Before they know it, their scientists are talking to the competition and trade secrets are leaking out.
"

I don't think author has a clue.
The secrets which could be accidentally spilled are not worth keeping.
If it so short it bound to be trivial, really essential results are megabytes and megabytes of data or code or know-how.
Treat your researcher as prisoners, get prison science in return.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</id>
	<title>Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future. It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.</p><p>I'd vote for cloud computing, previously known as utility computing. It's a lot more work than expected to offload processing outside your organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future .
It 's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.I 'd vote for cloud computing , previously known as utility computing .
It 's a lot more work than expected to offload processing outside your organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future.
It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.I'd vote for cloud computing, previously known as utility computing.
It's a lot more work than expected to offload processing outside your organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953258</id>
	<title>Anybody remember "Push" technology?</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257192120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all that brouhaha surrounding it?  We were supposed to sit back and have all that junk crammed down our throats, but we'd want it all, because the database would have our marketing preferences.</p><p>What about Linux? (On the desktop) (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all that brouhaha surrounding it ?
We were supposed to sit back and have all that junk crammed down our throats , but we 'd want it all , because the database would have our marketing preferences.What about Linux ?
( On the desktop ) ( Sorry , I could n't resist !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all that brouhaha surrounding it?
We were supposed to sit back and have all that junk crammed down our throats, but we'd want it all, because the database would have our marketing preferences.What about Linux?
(On the desktop) (Sorry, I couldn't resist!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962880</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.</p></div><p>Sorry that this is a bit off topic but it is bone of contention of mine.  When Lean is implemented properly (and I'll admit very few do it properly) there should be few lay offs.  The point of Lean is to reduce the waste in your processes to allow you to do more with the same amount of work.  It requires a great respect for your employees.  Unfortunately most employers see it as a way to reduce head count which then dooms the entire project and claim that lean does not work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.Sorry that this is a bit off topic but it is bone of contention of mine .
When Lean is implemented properly ( and I 'll admit very few do it properly ) there should be few lay offs .
The point of Lean is to reduce the waste in your processes to allow you to do more with the same amount of work .
It requires a great respect for your employees .
Unfortunately most employers see it as a way to reduce head count which then dooms the entire project and claim that lean does not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.Sorry that this is a bit off topic but it is bone of contention of mine.
When Lean is implemented properly (and I'll admit very few do it properly) there should be few lay offs.
The point of Lean is to reduce the waste in your processes to allow you to do more with the same amount of work.
It requires a great respect for your employees.
Unfortunately most employers see it as a way to reduce head count which then dooms the entire project and claim that lean does not work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958346</id>
	<title>virtualization? WHAT hype?</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1257172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been running it on my Linux desktop for years... with first, a Windows 98SE guest in Win4Lin, now WinXP and Win7 guests in Sun Virtualbox. The only reason why I don't have an OSX guest is that Apple won't sell one to me that'll run without hacking. This tech works <i>exactly</i> as advertised for me. I can run Linux and Windows apps against my datapool easily without having to keep two or more machines running to do this.
<br> <br>
YMMV, especially if you're using something other than Virtualbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been running it on my Linux desktop for years... with first , a Windows 98SE guest in Win4Lin , now WinXP and Win7 guests in Sun Virtualbox .
The only reason why I do n't have an OSX guest is that Apple wo n't sell one to me that 'll run without hacking .
This tech works exactly as advertised for me .
I can run Linux and Windows apps against my datapool easily without having to keep two or more machines running to do this .
YMMV , especially if you 're using something other than Virtualbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been running it on my Linux desktop for years... with first, a Windows 98SE guest in Win4Lin, now WinXP and Win7 guests in Sun Virtualbox.
The only reason why I don't have an OSX guest is that Apple won't sell one to me that'll run without hacking.
This tech works exactly as advertised for me.
I can run Linux and Windows apps against my datapool easily without having to keep two or more machines running to do this.
YMMV, especially if you're using something other than Virtualbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953776</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1257194220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To succeed with an ERP you have to cut business functionality that the ERP doesn't support.</p><p>The problem with ERP is executives.<br>They understand *very clearly* that we should not have custom code or the project will fail.</p><p>So they created a new name (can't share it here since it would ID my company) for customization so let's call it "Business Exception Functionality Coding".  We long ago passed 700 BEFC's.  People on the ERP team who have done ERP in the past now say we are in line for a 10 year implementation.  And it will require a large support staff whenever the ERP gets a new version.  And (if the past is prologue) will prevent us from upgrading.</p><p>But executives frequently succeed by redefining terms.  We will "succeed" at our first major goalpost in about 7 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To succeed with an ERP you have to cut business functionality that the ERP does n't support.The problem with ERP is executives.They understand * very clearly * that we should not have custom code or the project will fail.So they created a new name ( ca n't share it here since it would ID my company ) for customization so let 's call it " Business Exception Functionality Coding " .
We long ago passed 700 BEFC 's .
People on the ERP team who have done ERP in the past now say we are in line for a 10 year implementation .
And it will require a large support staff whenever the ERP gets a new version .
And ( if the past is prologue ) will prevent us from upgrading.But executives frequently succeed by redefining terms .
We will " succeed " at our first major goalpost in about 7 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To succeed with an ERP you have to cut business functionality that the ERP doesn't support.The problem with ERP is executives.They understand *very clearly* that we should not have custom code or the project will fail.So they created a new name (can't share it here since it would ID my company) for customization so let's call it "Business Exception Functionality Coding".
We long ago passed 700 BEFC's.
People on the ERP team who have done ERP in the past now say we are in line for a 10 year implementation.
And it will require a large support staff whenever the ERP gets a new version.
And (if the past is prologue) will prevent us from upgrading.But executives frequently succeed by redefining terms.
We will "succeed" at our first major goalpost in about 7 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956472</id>
	<title>Re:Those aren't all</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I *JUST* finished a phone interview with a guy who had listed "Agile Development Environment" as the last bullet point on the last consultant job on his resume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * JUST * finished a phone interview with a guy who had listed " Agile Development Environment " as the last bullet point on the last consultant job on his resume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *JUST* finished a phone interview with a guy who had listed "Agile Development Environment" as the last bullet point on the last consultant job on his resume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958010</id>
	<title>CASE then = Scaffolding now</title>
	<author>Phantasmagoria</author>
	<datestamp>1257171240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CASE was all about "Model Driven Development", and I'd say the "Scaffolding" provided by modern Application Toolkits (both web and desktop) is just that.</p><p>I write down a schema and BANG, I have all the code to maintain, modify, manipulate, and persist (through a database) that model. I can change the schema and BANG, the code gets regenerated. Some modern toolkits (e.g. Doctrine) even support writing migration classes to ease schema changes.</p><p>Many web application toolkits (e.g. Symfony) even auto-generate form classes, filter classes, a REST api, as well as basic templates to show, edit, create, and delete these models - making prototyping AND RAD super fast and easy.</p><p>If my interpretation of CASE is correct, it is very much a success today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CASE was all about " Model Driven Development " , and I 'd say the " Scaffolding " provided by modern Application Toolkits ( both web and desktop ) is just that.I write down a schema and BANG , I have all the code to maintain , modify , manipulate , and persist ( through a database ) that model .
I can change the schema and BANG , the code gets regenerated .
Some modern toolkits ( e.g .
Doctrine ) even support writing migration classes to ease schema changes.Many web application toolkits ( e.g .
Symfony ) even auto-generate form classes , filter classes , a REST api , as well as basic templates to show , edit , create , and delete these models - making prototyping AND RAD super fast and easy.If my interpretation of CASE is correct , it is very much a success today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CASE was all about "Model Driven Development", and I'd say the "Scaffolding" provided by modern Application Toolkits (both web and desktop) is just that.I write down a schema and BANG, I have all the code to maintain, modify, manipulate, and persist (through a database) that model.
I can change the schema and BANG, the code gets regenerated.
Some modern toolkits (e.g.
Doctrine) even support writing migration classes to ease schema changes.Many web application toolkits (e.g.
Symfony) even auto-generate form classes, filter classes, a REST api, as well as basic templates to show, edit, create, and delete these models - making prototyping AND RAD super fast and easy.If my interpretation of CASE is correct, it is very much a success today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954382</id>
	<title>Storage Virtualization</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1257153600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>EMC, IBM, HDS and HP I'm looking at you.</b></p><p>You've been pushing this Storage Virtualization on us storage admins for years now, and it's more trouble than it's worth.  What is it?  It's putting some sort of appliance (or in HDS's view a new disk array) in front of all of my other disk arrays, trying to commoditize my back end disk arrays, so that I can have capacity provided by any vendor I choose.  You make claims like,</p><p><i> <b>1.</b>     "You'll never have vendor lock-in with Storage virtualization!"</i>  However, now that I'm using your appliance to provide the intelligence (snapshots, sync/async replication, migration etc) I'm now locked into your solution.<br><i> <b>2.</b>     "This will be easy to manage."</i>  How many of these fucking appliances do I need for my new 100TB disk array? When I've got over 300 storage ports on my various arrays, and my appliance has 4 (IBM SVC I'm looking at you), how many nodes do I need? I'm now spending as much time trying to scale up your appliance solution that for every large array I deploy, I need 4 racks worth of appliances.<br><i> <b>3.</b>     "This will be homogeneous!"</i> Bull fucking shit.  You claimed that this stuff will work with any vendor's disk arrays so that I can purchase the cheapest $/GB arrays out there.  No more DMX, just clariion, no more DS8000 now fastT.  What a load.  You only support other vendor's disk arrays during the initial migration and then I'm pretty much stuck with your arrays until the end of time. So much for your utopian view of any vendor. So now that I've got to standardize on your back end disk arrays, it's not like you're saving me the trouble of only having one loadbalancing software solutions (DMP, Powerpath, HDLM, SDD etc..).  If I have DMX on the backend, I'm using Powerpath whether I like it or not.  This would have been nice if I was willing to have four different vendor's selling me backend capacity, but since I don't want to deal with service contracts from four different vendors, that idea is a goner.</p><p>Besides, when I go to your large conferences down in Tampa, FL; even your own IT doesn't use it.  Why?  Because all you did is add another layer of complexity (troubleshooting, firmware updates, configuration) between my servers and their storage.</p><p>You can take this appliance (or switch based in EMC's case) based storage virtualization and Shove It!</p><p>btw: There's a reason why we connect mainframe channels directly to the control units. (OpenSystems translation: Connecting hba ports to storage array ports.) Answer:  Cable doesn't need upgrading, doesn't need maintenance contracts and is 100\% passive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EMC , IBM , HDS and HP I 'm looking at you.You 've been pushing this Storage Virtualization on us storage admins for years now , and it 's more trouble than it 's worth .
What is it ?
It 's putting some sort of appliance ( or in HDS 's view a new disk array ) in front of all of my other disk arrays , trying to commoditize my back end disk arrays , so that I can have capacity provided by any vendor I choose .
You make claims like , 1 .
" You 'll never have vendor lock-in with Storage virtualization !
" However , now that I 'm using your appliance to provide the intelligence ( snapshots , sync/async replication , migration etc ) I 'm now locked into your solution .
2. " This will be easy to manage .
" How many of these fucking appliances do I need for my new 100TB disk array ?
When I 've got over 300 storage ports on my various arrays , and my appliance has 4 ( IBM SVC I 'm looking at you ) , how many nodes do I need ?
I 'm now spending as much time trying to scale up your appliance solution that for every large array I deploy , I need 4 racks worth of appliances .
3. " This will be homogeneous !
" Bull fucking shit .
You claimed that this stuff will work with any vendor 's disk arrays so that I can purchase the cheapest $ /GB arrays out there .
No more DMX , just clariion , no more DS8000 now fastT .
What a load .
You only support other vendor 's disk arrays during the initial migration and then I 'm pretty much stuck with your arrays until the end of time .
So much for your utopian view of any vendor .
So now that I 've got to standardize on your back end disk arrays , it 's not like you 're saving me the trouble of only having one loadbalancing software solutions ( DMP , Powerpath , HDLM , SDD etc.. ) .
If I have DMX on the backend , I 'm using Powerpath whether I like it or not .
This would have been nice if I was willing to have four different vendor 's selling me backend capacity , but since I do n't want to deal with service contracts from four different vendors , that idea is a goner.Besides , when I go to your large conferences down in Tampa , FL ; even your own IT does n't use it .
Why ? Because all you did is add another layer of complexity ( troubleshooting , firmware updates , configuration ) between my servers and their storage.You can take this appliance ( or switch based in EMC 's case ) based storage virtualization and Shove It ! btw : There 's a reason why we connect mainframe channels directly to the control units .
( OpenSystems translation : Connecting hba ports to storage array ports .
) Answer : Cable does n't need upgrading , does n't need maintenance contracts and is 100 \ % passive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EMC, IBM, HDS and HP I'm looking at you.You've been pushing this Storage Virtualization on us storage admins for years now, and it's more trouble than it's worth.
What is it?
It's putting some sort of appliance (or in HDS's view a new disk array) in front of all of my other disk arrays, trying to commoditize my back end disk arrays, so that I can have capacity provided by any vendor I choose.
You make claims like, 1.
"You'll never have vendor lock-in with Storage virtualization!
"  However, now that I'm using your appliance to provide the intelligence (snapshots, sync/async replication, migration etc) I'm now locked into your solution.
2.     "This will be easy to manage.
"  How many of these fucking appliances do I need for my new 100TB disk array?
When I've got over 300 storage ports on my various arrays, and my appliance has 4 (IBM SVC I'm looking at you), how many nodes do I need?
I'm now spending as much time trying to scale up your appliance solution that for every large array I deploy, I need 4 racks worth of appliances.
3.     "This will be homogeneous!
" Bull fucking shit.
You claimed that this stuff will work with any vendor's disk arrays so that I can purchase the cheapest $/GB arrays out there.
No more DMX, just clariion, no more DS8000 now fastT.
What a load.
You only support other vendor's disk arrays during the initial migration and then I'm pretty much stuck with your arrays until the end of time.
So much for your utopian view of any vendor.
So now that I've got to standardize on your back end disk arrays, it's not like you're saving me the trouble of only having one loadbalancing software solutions (DMP, Powerpath, HDLM, SDD etc..).
If I have DMX on the backend, I'm using Powerpath whether I like it or not.
This would have been nice if I was willing to have four different vendor's selling me backend capacity, but since I don't want to deal with service contracts from four different vendors, that idea is a goner.Besides, when I go to your large conferences down in Tampa, FL; even your own IT doesn't use it.
Why?  Because all you did is add another layer of complexity (troubleshooting, firmware updates, configuration) between my servers and their storage.You can take this appliance (or switch based in EMC's case) based storage virtualization and Shove It!btw: There's a reason why we connect mainframe channels directly to the control units.
(OpenSystems translation: Connecting hba ports to storage array ports.
) Answer:  Cable doesn't need upgrading, doesn't need maintenance contracts and is 100\% passive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1257190080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.</p></div><p>Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!"  That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.  A film reel which was shown as the first thing in my graduate level AI class, I might add.  Sadly, I no longer have the reference to this clip.</p><p>One major lesson was that there's an error in thinking "surely solving hard problem <em>X</em> must mean we've achieved artificial intelligence."  As each of these problems fell (a computer passing the freshman calc exam at MIT, a computer beating a chess grandmaster, and many others), we realized that the solutions were simply due to understanding the problem and designing appropriate algorithms and/or hardware.</p><p>The other lesson from that first day of AI class was that the above properties made AI into the incredible shrinking discipline: each of its successes weren't recognized as "intelligence", but often did spawn entire new disciplines of powerful problem solving that are used everywhere today.  So "AI" research gets no credit, even though its researchers have made great strides for computing in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI , like so many other things , would benefit us in small steps.Actually , there was a period very early on ( '50s ) when it was naively thought that " we 'll have thinking machines within five years !
" That 's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950 's .
A film reel which was shown as the first thing in my graduate level AI class , I might add .
Sadly , I no longer have the reference to this clip.One major lesson was that there 's an error in thinking " surely solving hard problem X must mean we 've achieved artificial intelligence .
" As each of these problems fell ( a computer passing the freshman calc exam at MIT , a computer beating a chess grandmaster , and many others ) , we realized that the solutions were simply due to understanding the problem and designing appropriate algorithms and/or hardware.The other lesson from that first day of AI class was that the above properties made AI into the incredible shrinking discipline : each of its successes were n't recognized as " intelligence " , but often did spawn entire new disciplines of powerful problem solving that are used everywhere today .
So " AI " research gets no credit , even though its researchers have made great strides for computing in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps.Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!
"  That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.
A film reel which was shown as the first thing in my graduate level AI class, I might add.
Sadly, I no longer have the reference to this clip.One major lesson was that there's an error in thinking "surely solving hard problem X must mean we've achieved artificial intelligence.
"  As each of these problems fell (a computer passing the freshman calc exam at MIT, a computer beating a chess grandmaster, and many others), we realized that the solutions were simply due to understanding the problem and designing appropriate algorithms and/or hardware.The other lesson from that first day of AI class was that the above properties made AI into the incredible shrinking discipline: each of its successes weren't recognized as "intelligence", but often did spawn entire new disciplines of powerful problem solving that are used everywhere today.
So "AI" research gets no credit, even though its researchers have made great strides for computing in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954996</id>
	<title>Re:Machine translation replacing human translation</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1257156420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That' Not real s, AI great translation work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That ' Not real s , AI great translation work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That' Not real s, AI great translation work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952930</id>
	<title>Thin Clients?</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1257190500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the description in here the cloud didn't work because: <p><div class="quote"><p>Worse, users resented giving up control over their machines, adds Mike Slavin, partner and managing director responsible for leading TPI's Innovation Center. "The technology underestimated the value users place upon having their own 'personal' computer, rather than a device analogous -- stretching to make a point here -- to the days of dumb terminals," he says.</p></div><p>So why does it look good now? Oh right different people heard the setup and a new generation gets suckered on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the description in here the cloud did n't work because : Worse , users resented giving up control over their machines , adds Mike Slavin , partner and managing director responsible for leading TPI 's Innovation Center .
" The technology underestimated the value users place upon having their own 'personal ' computer , rather than a device analogous -- stretching to make a point here -- to the days of dumb terminals , " he says.So why does it look good now ?
Oh right different people heard the setup and a new generation gets suckered on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the description in here the cloud didn't work because: Worse, users resented giving up control over their machines, adds Mike Slavin, partner and managing director responsible for leading TPI's Innovation Center.
"The technology underestimated the value users place upon having their own 'personal' computer, rather than a device analogous -- stretching to make a point here -- to the days of dumb terminals," he says.So why does it look good now?
Oh right different people heard the setup and a new generation gets suckered on it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954130</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1257152580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used virtualization at home, with VMware, before VMware had an Enterprise product.  I was a beta-tester and user of the original VMware Workstation product for Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used virtualization at home , with VMware , before VMware had an Enterprise product .
I was a beta-tester and user of the original VMware Workstation product for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used virtualization at home, with VMware, before VMware had an Enterprise product.
I was a beta-tester and user of the original VMware Workstation product for Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965966</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1257275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's such a poor argument, because all you are really saying is that more and more people are becoming aware of what is computable.</p><p>But, on the other hand, I would define intelligence exactly the same as you, because that is the best working definition "something is intelligent if it can persuade me that it is intelligent". The intelligent entity has to persuade everyone that it is intelligent, which is always going to be heavily biased towards human types of mental ability.</p><p>We currently don't consider animals too intelligent because they are not intelligent in relations to us (not relative to us, but how much they can relate to us and fulfill out human expectations). Animals do solve problems, make tools, show signs of limited abstract thinking, yet most of us will happily eat them for lunch and not feel guilty about it the least.</p><p>It's the same with artificial forms of intelligence. The intelligent entity will have to work hard to persuade us that it can fulfill our expectations, but if it does we will have no alternative but to recognize that it is intelligent.</p><p>But even then, most people will have objections that the thing is conscious, has feelings or should have rights (same as with animals, we just don't want to think of them that way, since we currently eat them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's such a poor argument , because all you are really saying is that more and more people are becoming aware of what is computable.But , on the other hand , I would define intelligence exactly the same as you , because that is the best working definition " something is intelligent if it can persuade me that it is intelligent " .
The intelligent entity has to persuade everyone that it is intelligent , which is always going to be heavily biased towards human types of mental ability.We currently do n't consider animals too intelligent because they are not intelligent in relations to us ( not relative to us , but how much they can relate to us and fulfill out human expectations ) .
Animals do solve problems , make tools , show signs of limited abstract thinking , yet most of us will happily eat them for lunch and not feel guilty about it the least.It 's the same with artificial forms of intelligence .
The intelligent entity will have to work hard to persuade us that it can fulfill our expectations , but if it does we will have no alternative but to recognize that it is intelligent.But even then , most people will have objections that the thing is conscious , has feelings or should have rights ( same as with animals , we just do n't want to think of them that way , since we currently eat them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's such a poor argument, because all you are really saying is that more and more people are becoming aware of what is computable.But, on the other hand, I would define intelligence exactly the same as you, because that is the best working definition "something is intelligent if it can persuade me that it is intelligent".
The intelligent entity has to persuade everyone that it is intelligent, which is always going to be heavily biased towards human types of mental ability.We currently don't consider animals too intelligent because they are not intelligent in relations to us (not relative to us, but how much they can relate to us and fulfill out human expectations).
Animals do solve problems, make tools, show signs of limited abstract thinking, yet most of us will happily eat them for lunch and not feel guilty about it the least.It's the same with artificial forms of intelligence.
The intelligent entity will have to work hard to persuade us that it can fulfill our expectations, but if it does we will have no alternative but to recognize that it is intelligent.But even then, most people will have objections that the thing is conscious, has feelings or should have rights (same as with animals, we just don't want to think of them that way, since we currently eat them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960558</id>
	<title>Ruby on Rails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>discuss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954154</id>
	<title>AI spinoffs</title>
	<author>Lovelander</author>
	<datestamp>1257152640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Artificial Intelligence is a body of research that has constantly spun off specific solutions for the past 40 or 50 years:

1) Object orient design/programming was originated in LISP programming decades ago and was used in the development of the original GUI interface APIs and is now taken for  granted.

2) Robotic arm kinematics programming was spun off from AI research and is now used to build industrial robots, surgical robots, walking bugs, robot dogs, and is now taken for granted

3) Optical Character Recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and taken for granted

4) Speech recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and an IT industry of it own

5) Machine vision was originally AI research and has been spun off into its own body of knowledge

6) The blackboard architectural design pattern was originally called "production systems" in AI research and is now considered a standard solution tool

7) Bayesian spam filtering is based on Bayesian clustering, a basis of many AI systems like machine vision. It too is now taken for granted in IT.


Artificial Intelligence gets a bad rap because every one of its successes has spawned another software industry. All hail artificial intelligence!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artificial Intelligence is a body of research that has constantly spun off specific solutions for the past 40 or 50 years : 1 ) Object orient design/programming was originated in LISP programming decades ago and was used in the development of the original GUI interface APIs and is now taken for granted .
2 ) Robotic arm kinematics programming was spun off from AI research and is now used to build industrial robots , surgical robots , walking bugs , robot dogs , and is now taken for granted 3 ) Optical Character Recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and taken for granted 4 ) Speech recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and an IT industry of it own 5 ) Machine vision was originally AI research and has been spun off into its own body of knowledge 6 ) The blackboard architectural design pattern was originally called " production systems " in AI research and is now considered a standard solution tool 7 ) Bayesian spam filtering is based on Bayesian clustering , a basis of many AI systems like machine vision .
It too is now taken for granted in IT .
Artificial Intelligence gets a bad rap because every one of its successes has spawned another software industry .
All hail artificial intelligence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artificial Intelligence is a body of research that has constantly spun off specific solutions for the past 40 or 50 years:

1) Object orient design/programming was originated in LISP programming decades ago and was used in the development of the original GUI interface APIs and is now taken for  granted.
2) Robotic arm kinematics programming was spun off from AI research and is now used to build industrial robots, surgical robots, walking bugs, robot dogs, and is now taken for granted

3) Optical Character Recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and taken for granted

4) Speech recognition was originally AI research and is now commercialized and an IT industry of it own

5) Machine vision was originally AI research and has been spun off into its own body of knowledge

6) The blackboard architectural design pattern was originally called "production systems" in AI research and is now considered a standard solution tool

7) Bayesian spam filtering is based on Bayesian clustering, a basis of many AI systems like machine vision.
It too is now taken for granted in IT.
Artificial Intelligence gets a bad rap because every one of its successes has spawned another software industry.
All hail artificial intelligence!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952940</id>
	<title>Thanks for linking to the print version</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a bit OT but I wanted to say that snydeq deserves a cookie for linking to the print version. I can only imagine that the regular version is at least seven pages. I hope slashdot finds a way to reward considerate contributors such as him or her for making things easy for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a bit OT but I wanted to say that snydeq deserves a cookie for linking to the print version .
I can only imagine that the regular version is at least seven pages .
I hope slashdot finds a way to reward considerate contributors such as him or her for making things easy for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a bit OT but I wanted to say that snydeq deserves a cookie for linking to the print version.
I can only imagine that the regular version is at least seven pages.
I hope slashdot finds a way to reward considerate contributors such as him or her for making things easy for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964942</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>nyri</author>
	<datestamp>1257270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers</p></div><p>You're full of crap.  At my company<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I quit reading here. What is it with you and your ilk? Can't you disagree politely.</p><p>Sorry about off topic but it really dispirits my reading, when I see otherwise (or so I presume as the quoted comment is now +4 Interesting) decent comment being so abusive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many , many serversYou 're full of crap .
At my company ...I quit reading here .
What is it with you and your ilk ?
Ca n't you disagree politely.Sorry about off topic but it really dispirits my reading , when I see otherwise ( or so I presume as the quoted comment is now + 4 Interesting ) decent comment being so abusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many serversYou're full of crap.
At my company ...I quit reading here.
What is it with you and your ilk?
Can't you disagree politely.Sorry about off topic but it really dispirits my reading, when I see otherwise (or so I presume as the quoted comment is now +4 Interesting) decent comment being so abusive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956964</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1257166500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sort of agree with you, but not your assessment. <p><div class="quote"><p>Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.</p></div><p> The problem is that all sorts of animals and dumb people can do things that computers cannot do. Such as walk down a hallway, or walk a trail in the woods, or catch a frisbee in mid-air, or pick out your species' mating call in a woodland cacophony. People thought that if computers can do the "hard" stuff, such as solving complex equations, surely it's no problem for a computer to tell a frown from a smile, right? Even mentally disabled people can do that. Instead, what we find out is that computers are like intellectual savants: the hard stuff is easy for them, but the easy stuff is impossible. When they can do it, it's the the most limited and restricted of circumstances. But almost any animal is capable of chasing down prey, or out-maneuvering predators, or some devilishly difficult "AI" problem, and doing it with very little brainpower.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.</p></div><p>I'll believe it when I see it. So far, any AI seems to be an algorithm for solving a well-posed problems. Think of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno#Dialogue\_with\_Meno.27s\_slave" title="wikipedia.org">Dialogue with Meno's slave</a> [wikipedia.org]. Socrates is able to prove the reality of reincarnation by questioning a slave about the geometrical properties of squares. In answering these questions, the slave 'showed' he had advanced knowledge of geometry, which he was never taught, so that 'proved' he had learned it in a past life; Socrates merely helped him remember it.<br> <br> Actually, what really happened is that the slave acted as a simple calculator, much like today's computers. Socrates was the man behind the curtain, so to speak. He broke the problem down into simple problems that a slave could answer. Likewise with today's programmers. They pose simple problems with algorithms for solving it, and viola! The slave knows geometry. Meanwhile, once Socrates is out of the picture, the slave is somehow dumb again.<br> <br>Computers are good at solving well-posed problems. They aren't any good at creative works, such as dreaming up a new geometric proof, a GUT, a plot of a novel, a picture, painting, or any interesting visual work ( that's not just a simple expression of a mathematical formula, such as a fractal), or a decent tune. <br> <br>I think any device that is able to do creative work will a qualitatively different from the Turing machines we're familiar with today. This type of device will have no problem walking down a hall or ginning up a tune, but might have problems with advanced trig.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of agree with you , but not your assessment .
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract ; only we smart humans could do that .
The problem is that all sorts of animals and dumb people can do things that computers can not do .
Such as walk down a hallway , or walk a trail in the woods , or catch a frisbee in mid-air , or pick out your species ' mating call in a woodland cacophony .
People thought that if computers can do the " hard " stuff , such as solving complex equations , surely it 's no problem for a computer to tell a frown from a smile , right ?
Even mentally disabled people can do that .
Instead , what we find out is that computers are like intellectual savants : the hard stuff is easy for them , but the easy stuff is impossible .
When they can do it , it 's the the most limited and restricted of circumstances .
But almost any animal is capable of chasing down prey , or out-maneuvering predators , or some devilishly difficult " AI " problem , and doing it with very little brainpower.When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch , it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities , requiring no actual intelligence.I 'll believe it when I see it .
So far , any AI seems to be an algorithm for solving a well-posed problems .
Think of the Dialogue with Meno 's slave [ wikipedia.org ] .
Socrates is able to prove the reality of reincarnation by questioning a slave about the geometrical properties of squares .
In answering these questions , the slave 'showed ' he had advanced knowledge of geometry , which he was never taught , so that 'proved ' he had learned it in a past life ; Socrates merely helped him remember it .
Actually , what really happened is that the slave acted as a simple calculator , much like today 's computers .
Socrates was the man behind the curtain , so to speak .
He broke the problem down into simple problems that a slave could answer .
Likewise with today 's programmers .
They pose simple problems with algorithms for solving it , and viola !
The slave knows geometry .
Meanwhile , once Socrates is out of the picture , the slave is somehow dumb again .
Computers are good at solving well-posed problems .
They are n't any good at creative works , such as dreaming up a new geometric proof , a GUT , a plot of a novel , a picture , painting , or any interesting visual work ( that 's not just a simple expression of a mathematical formula , such as a fractal ) , or a decent tune .
I think any device that is able to do creative work will a qualitatively different from the Turing machines we 're familiar with today .
This type of device will have no problem walking down a hall or ginning up a tune , but might have problems with advanced trig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of agree with you, but not your assessment.
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.
The problem is that all sorts of animals and dumb people can do things that computers cannot do.
Such as walk down a hallway, or walk a trail in the woods, or catch a frisbee in mid-air, or pick out your species' mating call in a woodland cacophony.
People thought that if computers can do the "hard" stuff, such as solving complex equations, surely it's no problem for a computer to tell a frown from a smile, right?
Even mentally disabled people can do that.
Instead, what we find out is that computers are like intellectual savants: the hard stuff is easy for them, but the easy stuff is impossible.
When they can do it, it's the the most limited and restricted of circumstances.
But almost any animal is capable of chasing down prey, or out-maneuvering predators, or some devilishly difficult "AI" problem, and doing it with very little brainpower.When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.I'll believe it when I see it.
So far, any AI seems to be an algorithm for solving a well-posed problems.
Think of the Dialogue with Meno's slave [wikipedia.org].
Socrates is able to prove the reality of reincarnation by questioning a slave about the geometrical properties of squares.
In answering these questions, the slave 'showed' he had advanced knowledge of geometry, which he was never taught, so that 'proved' he had learned it in a past life; Socrates merely helped him remember it.
Actually, what really happened is that the slave acted as a simple calculator, much like today's computers.
Socrates was the man behind the curtain, so to speak.
He broke the problem down into simple problems that a slave could answer.
Likewise with today's programmers.
They pose simple problems with algorithms for solving it, and viola!
The slave knows geometry.
Meanwhile, once Socrates is out of the picture, the slave is somehow dumb again.
Computers are good at solving well-posed problems.
They aren't any good at creative works, such as dreaming up a new geometric proof, a GUT, a plot of a novel, a picture, painting, or any interesting visual work ( that's not just a simple expression of a mathematical formula, such as a fractal), or a decent tune.
I think any device that is able to do creative work will a qualitatively different from the Turing machines we're familiar with today.
This type of device will have no problem walking down a hall or ginning up a tune, but might have problems with advanced trig.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964344</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>rcharbon</author>
	<datestamp>1257267840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you can virtualize your servers and get more efficiency with your existing software.  You could choose to update your databases instead.</p><p>Virtualization is a good short term answer, but sooner or later, you're going to need to replace your FoxPro databases.  That replacement would be easier if you kept up with new versions of software as each one was released.  OTOH, no one wants to upgrade their applications every time a software vendor tweaks something.  Lots of little changes, or one big change when you're forced to do it?</p><p>As usual there's no one simple answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you can virtualize your servers and get more efficiency with your existing software .
You could choose to update your databases instead.Virtualization is a good short term answer , but sooner or later , you 're going to need to replace your FoxPro databases .
That replacement would be easier if you kept up with new versions of software as each one was released .
OTOH , no one wants to upgrade their applications every time a software vendor tweaks something .
Lots of little changes , or one big change when you 're forced to do it ? As usual there 's no one simple answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you can virtualize your servers and get more efficiency with your existing software.
You could choose to update your databases instead.Virtualization is a good short term answer, but sooner or later, you're going to need to replace your FoxPro databases.
That replacement would be easier if you kept up with new versions of software as each one was released.
OTOH, no one wants to upgrade their applications every time a software vendor tweaks something.
Lots of little changes, or one big change when you're forced to do it?As usual there's no one simple answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952894</id>
	<title>Microsoft silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That went over real well once they saw user visits drop by almost half...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That went over real well once they saw user visits drop by almost half.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That went over real well once they saw user visits drop by almost half...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961468</id>
	<title>Re:There is just one Myth.</title>
	<author>- r</author>
	<datestamp>1257246240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>back in the days, we had the big boss of our IT dept (at a major university) who would bring in salesmen from every company that knocked on his door. he would without exception buy it, and give it to someone (often me) to create a wonderful new application in less than a week (with documentation, of course). this *never* worked, and i was often the scapegoat, since 'he saw the salesman build something just like it in his office'. later, as y2k approached, the financial systems decided they could not convert in time, so they went to an erp system (as eventually did the rest of the university/s systems). this was the biggest money pit i have ever seen. the yearly software licenses were in the millions, the staff tripled to deal w/ the problems, outside contractors were brought in at salaries twice ours. if anyone had given anyone at the university an accurate assessment of how much this costs (present tense), it would never have been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>back in the days , we had the big boss of our IT dept ( at a major university ) who would bring in salesmen from every company that knocked on his door .
he would without exception buy it , and give it to someone ( often me ) to create a wonderful new application in less than a week ( with documentation , of course ) .
this * never * worked , and i was often the scapegoat , since 'he saw the salesman build something just like it in his office' .
later , as y2k approached , the financial systems decided they could not convert in time , so they went to an erp system ( as eventually did the rest of the university/s systems ) .
this was the biggest money pit i have ever seen .
the yearly software licenses were in the millions , the staff tripled to deal w/ the problems , outside contractors were brought in at salaries twice ours .
if anyone had given anyone at the university an accurate assessment of how much this costs ( present tense ) , it would never have been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in the days, we had the big boss of our IT dept (at a major university) who would bring in salesmen from every company that knocked on his door.
he would without exception buy it, and give it to someone (often me) to create a wonderful new application in less than a week (with documentation, of course).
this *never* worked, and i was often the scapegoat, since 'he saw the salesman build something just like it in his office'.
later, as y2k approached, the financial systems decided they could not convert in time, so they went to an erp system (as eventually did the rest of the university/s systems).
this was the biggest money pit i have ever seen.
the yearly software licenses were in the millions, the staff tripled to deal w/ the problems, outside contractors were brought in at salaries twice ours.
if anyone had given anyone at the university an accurate assessment of how much this costs (present tense), it would never have been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954106</id>
	<title>Where's Cloud Computing on that list??</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1257152460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I definitely agree with a lot of the items on that list. This time around, however, thin clients are definitely in the running because of all the amazing VDI, virtual app stuff and fast cheap networks. However, anyone who tells you that you can replace every single PC or laptop in your company needs to calm down a little. Same goes for the people who explain thin clients in a way that makes it sound like client problems go away magically. They don't - you just roll them all up into the data center, where you had better have a crack operations staff who can keep everything going. Why? Because if the network fails, your users have a useless paperweighr on their desk until you fix it.</p><p>I'm definitely surprised to not see cloud computing on that list. This is another rehashed technology, this time with the fast cheap network connectivity thrown in. The design principles are great -- build your app so it's abstracted from physical hardware, etc. but I've seen way too many cloud vendors downplay the whole data ownership and vendor lock-in problems. In my opinion, this makes sense for people's Facebook photos, not a company's annual budget numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely agree with a lot of the items on that list .
This time around , however , thin clients are definitely in the running because of all the amazing VDI , virtual app stuff and fast cheap networks .
However , anyone who tells you that you can replace every single PC or laptop in your company needs to calm down a little .
Same goes for the people who explain thin clients in a way that makes it sound like client problems go away magically .
They do n't - you just roll them all up into the data center , where you had better have a crack operations staff who can keep everything going .
Why ? Because if the network fails , your users have a useless paperweighr on their desk until you fix it.I 'm definitely surprised to not see cloud computing on that list .
This is another rehashed technology , this time with the fast cheap network connectivity thrown in .
The design principles are great -- build your app so it 's abstracted from physical hardware , etc .
but I 've seen way too many cloud vendors downplay the whole data ownership and vendor lock-in problems .
In my opinion , this makes sense for people 's Facebook photos , not a company 's annual budget numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely agree with a lot of the items on that list.
This time around, however, thin clients are definitely in the running because of all the amazing VDI, virtual app stuff and fast cheap networks.
However, anyone who tells you that you can replace every single PC or laptop in your company needs to calm down a little.
Same goes for the people who explain thin clients in a way that makes it sound like client problems go away magically.
They don't - you just roll them all up into the data center, where you had better have a crack operations staff who can keep everything going.
Why? Because if the network fails, your users have a useless paperweighr on their desk until you fix it.I'm definitely surprised to not see cloud computing on that list.
This is another rehashed technology, this time with the fast cheap network connectivity thrown in.
The design principles are great -- build your app so it's abstracted from physical hardware, etc.
but I've seen way too many cloud vendors downplay the whole data ownership and vendor lock-in problems.
In my opinion, this makes sense for people's Facebook photos, not a company's annual budget numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957246</id>
	<title>Thin Clients Rule!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thin clients have to be the best thing I've encountered in IT. I'm the infrastructure Manager for a small health care company that runs about 1200 employees with 3 help desk employees, 4 systems employees and a handful of developers. After going from Desktops at a yearly budget of about 5 million down to 1.5 after terminals</p><p>Lets break this down a little bit, we have three failures according to the article; server I/O, bandwidth, and users giving up control. As one disclaimer I don't believe thin client tech would have worked until 2006/2007, things weren't their just yet.</p><p>Server I/O<br>We run almost nothing outside of VM. My real servers include 4 Cisco VOIP servers and 3 infrastructure server that support things like the ESX VM farm. Everything thing else is a VM. Everything from the SQL boxes, exchange, some linux  boxes and all of the Citrix servers. Yes that's right, Citrix works GREAT in a VM. If you have the proper gear it works great. Costs are high but nothing compared to standard servers and full desktops. The gear this runs on is really cool. Giant EMC SANS, 8 way servers with 64GB of RAM. It's a fun environment for an IT type.</p><p>Bandwidth<br>It's not a problem today. I run 14 offices over MPLS 1.5MBPS T1s which range in size from 10 staff to 70. The only thing that runs of the WAN is Citrix and VOIP, everything else is restricted. Even in the largest offices with 70 employees we barley see usage of 40\% on the T1s at peak times.</p><p>Users giving up control.<br>This actually sucks, but we were allowed to hide under HIPPA and health care staff will put-up with a lot of BS in the name of HIPPA.</p><p>That's about all I have to say on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thin clients have to be the best thing I 've encountered in IT .
I 'm the infrastructure Manager for a small health care company that runs about 1200 employees with 3 help desk employees , 4 systems employees and a handful of developers .
After going from Desktops at a yearly budget of about 5 million down to 1.5 after terminalsLets break this down a little bit , we have three failures according to the article ; server I/O , bandwidth , and users giving up control .
As one disclaimer I do n't believe thin client tech would have worked until 2006/2007 , things were n't their just yet.Server I/OWe run almost nothing outside of VM .
My real servers include 4 Cisco VOIP servers and 3 infrastructure server that support things like the ESX VM farm .
Everything thing else is a VM .
Everything from the SQL boxes , exchange , some linux boxes and all of the Citrix servers .
Yes that 's right , Citrix works GREAT in a VM .
If you have the proper gear it works great .
Costs are high but nothing compared to standard servers and full desktops .
The gear this runs on is really cool .
Giant EMC SANS , 8 way servers with 64GB of RAM .
It 's a fun environment for an IT type.BandwidthIt 's not a problem today .
I run 14 offices over MPLS 1.5MBPS T1s which range in size from 10 staff to 70 .
The only thing that runs of the WAN is Citrix and VOIP , everything else is restricted .
Even in the largest offices with 70 employees we barley see usage of 40 \ % on the T1s at peak times.Users giving up control.This actually sucks , but we were allowed to hide under HIPPA and health care staff will put-up with a lot of BS in the name of HIPPA.That 's about all I have to say on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thin clients have to be the best thing I've encountered in IT.
I'm the infrastructure Manager for a small health care company that runs about 1200 employees with 3 help desk employees, 4 systems employees and a handful of developers.
After going from Desktops at a yearly budget of about 5 million down to 1.5 after terminalsLets break this down a little bit, we have three failures according to the article; server I/O, bandwidth, and users giving up control.
As one disclaimer I don't believe thin client tech would have worked until 2006/2007, things weren't their just yet.Server I/OWe run almost nothing outside of VM.
My real servers include 4 Cisco VOIP servers and 3 infrastructure server that support things like the ESX VM farm.
Everything thing else is a VM.
Everything from the SQL boxes, exchange, some linux  boxes and all of the Citrix servers.
Yes that's right, Citrix works GREAT in a VM.
If you have the proper gear it works great.
Costs are high but nothing compared to standard servers and full desktops.
The gear this runs on is really cool.
Giant EMC SANS, 8 way servers with 64GB of RAM.
It's a fun environment for an IT type.BandwidthIt's not a problem today.
I run 14 offices over MPLS 1.5MBPS T1s which range in size from 10 staff to 70.
The only thing that runs of the WAN is Citrix and VOIP, everything else is restricted.
Even in the largest offices with 70 employees we barley see usage of 40\% on the T1s at peak times.Users giving up control.This actually sucks, but we were allowed to hide under HIPPA and health care staff will put-up with a lot of BS in the name of HIPPA.That's about all I have to say on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954920</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1257156120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence. Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.</i></p><p>Interestingly, in recent years, many animals have been found to be able to perform simple mathematical tasks.</p><p>Dolphins:<br><a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/marine.html" title="apa.org">http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/marine.html</a> [apa.org]<br>Monkeys:<br><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317526,00.html" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317526,00.html</a> [foxnews.com]<br>Dogs can do calculus:<br><a href="http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031008/Feature1.asp" title="sciencenewsforkids.org">http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031008/Feature1.asp</a> [sciencenewsforkids.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most obvious counterexample to the " AI " nonsense is to consider that , back around 1800 or any time earlier , it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence .
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract ; only we smart humans could do that.Interestingly , in recent years , many animals have been found to be able to perform simple mathematical tasks.Dolphins : http : //www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/marine.html [ apa.org ] Monkeys : http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317526,00.html [ foxnews.com ] Dogs can do calculus : http : //www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031008/Feature1.asp [ sciencenewsforkids.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence.
Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.Interestingly, in recent years, many animals have been found to be able to perform simple mathematical tasks.Dolphins:http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/marine.html [apa.org]Monkeys:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317526,00.html [foxnews.com]Dogs can do calculus:http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031008/Feature1.asp [sciencenewsforkids.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953656</id>
	<title>Re:Machine translation replacing human translation</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's getting closer.  Verbal to verbal is there (really slow and incomplete, but it's better than babelfish [the website, not the Hitchhikers' Deus Machina]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's getting closer .
Verbal to verbal is there ( really slow and incomplete , but it 's better than babelfish [ the website , not the Hitchhikers ' Deus Machina ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's getting closer.
Verbal to verbal is there (really slow and incomplete, but it's better than babelfish [the website, not the Hitchhikers' Deus Machina]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953296</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257192240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like someone who invested the technology five years ago, and hasn't updated their information since.</p><p>1. If a small business is running more than two servers, then it's likely it'll be cheaper, over the next five years, to virtualize those servers.<br>2. If a small business needs any sort of guaranteed uptime, it's cheaper to virtualize - two machines and high availability with VMWare, and you are good to go.<br>3. Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple, and actually makes remote management easier, since I have CONSOLE access from remote sites to my machine.  Need to change the network connection or segment for a machine remotely?  You can't do it safely without virtualization.</p><p>There is more, but I recommend you check this out again, before continuing to spout this stuff.  It's just not true anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like someone who invested the technology five years ago , and has n't updated their information since.1 .
If a small business is running more than two servers , then it 's likely it 'll be cheaper , over the next five years , to virtualize those servers.2 .
If a small business needs any sort of guaranteed uptime , it 's cheaper to virtualize - two machines and high availability with VMWare , and you are good to go.3 .
Setting up VMWare , for example , is relatively simple , and actually makes remote management easier , since I have CONSOLE access from remote sites to my machine .
Need to change the network connection or segment for a machine remotely ?
You ca n't do it safely without virtualization.There is more , but I recommend you check this out again , before continuing to spout this stuff .
It 's just not true anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like someone who invested the technology five years ago, and hasn't updated their information since.1.
If a small business is running more than two servers, then it's likely it'll be cheaper, over the next five years, to virtualize those servers.2.
If a small business needs any sort of guaranteed uptime, it's cheaper to virtualize - two machines and high availability with VMWare, and you are good to go.3.
Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple, and actually makes remote management easier, since I have CONSOLE access from remote sites to my machine.
Need to change the network connection or segment for a machine remotely?
You can't do it safely without virtualization.There is more, but I recommend you check this out again, before continuing to spout this stuff.
It's just not true anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962048</id>
	<title>Programming the Routine</title>
	<author>benb</author>
	<datestamp>1257253440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.</p></div><p>Correct. I have observed this thought in myself. I also wondered whether I deceive myself. But this is something else than AI: AI aspires to create "intelligent" machines, which can:<br>learn, understand, and reason.</p><p>Without having been programmed specifically. To follow a certain programmed algorithm, which is simply processed and executed, doesn't count as AI for me. That is then indeed purely mechanical. Input -&gt; specific, given process -&gt; Output.</p><p>What we see is that we can program ever more jobs as such a mechanical algorithm, through advances in hardware and software as you describe. Our toolbox increases, gets more powerful, therefore we can build more powerful, more useful machines. We can take a data source like the ID3 tags of songs played in Amarok, and compare that with those from other users, and find matches and differences, and based on that make proposals. 20 years ago, we'd have said that needs a true music lover or an inspired music shop owner, but now we can program it with our bigger toolbox. We can even generalize it to arbitrary data sources (RDF, OWL). Nevertheless, it's still a mechanical process that a human has analyzed, abstracted, broken down, and expressed as mechanical steps using the toolbox. It's the human who thought it out, and the computer just follows a given work pattern.</p><p>This is very useful and on a very high level, but it's per se not KI for me, because the computer has neither learned nor understood nor reasoned. Throw corn in from the top, run through mill, get flour out at the bottom. "Routinely" and "mechanical" are the key words in your comment. Sorting letters into a file folder cabinet is a routine that requires no intelligence, even if a human executes it. Inventing sorting was intelligent. But it only needs to be done once. That's what computers are good for, IMHO: Routine. We are striving to let them do ever more, higher-level routine jobs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer , it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence ; it 's a mere mechanical activity.Correct .
I have observed this thought in myself .
I also wondered whether I deceive myself .
But this is something else than AI : AI aspires to create " intelligent " machines , which can : learn , understand , and reason.Without having been programmed specifically .
To follow a certain programmed algorithm , which is simply processed and executed , does n't count as AI for me .
That is then indeed purely mechanical .
Input - &gt; specific , given process - &gt; Output.What we see is that we can program ever more jobs as such a mechanical algorithm , through advances in hardware and software as you describe .
Our toolbox increases , gets more powerful , therefore we can build more powerful , more useful machines .
We can take a data source like the ID3 tags of songs played in Amarok , and compare that with those from other users , and find matches and differences , and based on that make proposals .
20 years ago , we 'd have said that needs a true music lover or an inspired music shop owner , but now we can program it with our bigger toolbox .
We can even generalize it to arbitrary data sources ( RDF , OWL ) .
Nevertheless , it 's still a mechanical process that a human has analyzed , abstracted , broken down , and expressed as mechanical steps using the toolbox .
It 's the human who thought it out , and the computer just follows a given work pattern.This is very useful and on a very high level , but it 's per se not KI for me , because the computer has neither learned nor understood nor reasoned .
Throw corn in from the top , run through mill , get flour out at the bottom .
" Routinely " and " mechanical " are the key words in your comment .
Sorting letters into a file folder cabinet is a routine that requires no intelligence , even if a human executes it .
Inventing sorting was intelligent .
But it only needs to be done once .
That 's what computers are good for , IMHO : Routine .
We are striving to let them do ever more , higher-level routine jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity.Correct.
I have observed this thought in myself.
I also wondered whether I deceive myself.
But this is something else than AI: AI aspires to create "intelligent" machines, which can:learn, understand, and reason.Without having been programmed specifically.
To follow a certain programmed algorithm, which is simply processed and executed, doesn't count as AI for me.
That is then indeed purely mechanical.
Input -&gt; specific, given process -&gt; Output.What we see is that we can program ever more jobs as such a mechanical algorithm, through advances in hardware and software as you describe.
Our toolbox increases, gets more powerful, therefore we can build more powerful, more useful machines.
We can take a data source like the ID3 tags of songs played in Amarok, and compare that with those from other users, and find matches and differences, and based on that make proposals.
20 years ago, we'd have said that needs a true music lover or an inspired music shop owner, but now we can program it with our bigger toolbox.
We can even generalize it to arbitrary data sources (RDF, OWL).
Nevertheless, it's still a mechanical process that a human has analyzed, abstracted, broken down, and expressed as mechanical steps using the toolbox.
It's the human who thought it out, and the computer just follows a given work pattern.This is very useful and on a very high level, but it's per se not KI for me, because the computer has neither learned nor understood nor reasoned.
Throw corn in from the top, run through mill, get flour out at the bottom.
"Routinely" and "mechanical" are the key words in your comment.
Sorting letters into a file folder cabinet is a routine that requires no intelligence, even if a human executes it.
Inventing sorting was intelligent.
But it only needs to be done once.
That's what computers are good for, IMHO: Routine.
We are striving to let them do ever more, higher-level routine jobs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957994</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1257171060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good post.  I wouldn't doubt that scenario.</p><p>One alternative would be learning algorithms, where we don't exactly know what the code is at any given moment, and one day, hardware becomes fast enough, parallel enough, and the input/output of the machine fast enough that it begins learning exponentially and "wakes up".</p><p>I'm not sure that everyone would agree that it is merely mechanical if it sort of 'grew' and wasn't line by line hand coded.  Even more abstractly, what if the growing was done in a virtual biological environment exactly duplicating conditions in real life, a virtual human?   What if the learning algorithms were instructed to create the virtual environment and check it against real biological input (monitoring animals nervous systems by producing light, sound smells, being given more and more tools that the computer could actually use and experiment with).</p><p>Who knows, its fun to think about though:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good post .
I would n't doubt that scenario.One alternative would be learning algorithms , where we do n't exactly know what the code is at any given moment , and one day , hardware becomes fast enough , parallel enough , and the input/output of the machine fast enough that it begins learning exponentially and " wakes up " .I 'm not sure that everyone would agree that it is merely mechanical if it sort of 'grew ' and was n't line by line hand coded .
Even more abstractly , what if the growing was done in a virtual biological environment exactly duplicating conditions in real life , a virtual human ?
What if the learning algorithms were instructed to create the virtual environment and check it against real biological input ( monitoring animals nervous systems by producing light , sound smells , being given more and more tools that the computer could actually use and experiment with ) .Who knows , its fun to think about though : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good post.
I wouldn't doubt that scenario.One alternative would be learning algorithms, where we don't exactly know what the code is at any given moment, and one day, hardware becomes fast enough, parallel enough, and the input/output of the machine fast enough that it begins learning exponentially and "wakes up".I'm not sure that everyone would agree that it is merely mechanical if it sort of 'grew' and wasn't line by line hand coded.
Even more abstractly, what if the growing was done in a virtual biological environment exactly duplicating conditions in real life, a virtual human?
What if the learning algorithms were instructed to create the virtual environment and check it against real biological input (monitoring animals nervous systems by producing light, sound smells, being given more and more tools that the computer could actually use and experiment with).Who knows, its fun to think about though:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954686</id>
	<title>Even worse in the field of Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257154980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    Wow, this is even worse in the field of Educaiton where IT snake oil salesmen, use their skills to sell talks on new technologies that will revolutionize education as we know it. They get paid to give these lectures to captive Administrative/Instructional audiences under the auspice of staff development. Since many of these IT snake oil salesmen understand the audience so well - they know it is an easy sell because most attendees do not have a technology background.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It helps if the technologies have already been hyped by the media for other purposes. The latest push is for Web 2.0 technologies, which means just about anything. Right now in our area it is for Social Networking, BLOGs and Wiki to engage the students in the 21st century classroom. Previously, it was one to one computer instruction which was meant to be one device per students. Although that movement has yet to end and still seems to have some life in it. Started as desktops, then laptops and now is migrating to any form of electronic instruction device.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You'll never guess who would love to see one? You guessed it the device manufacturers. It's great for their bottom line but may not be the most efficient use of resources.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The worst part for those in IT is that being education there is no shortage of hardcore zealots for any particular cause and if you dare to point out any flaws or even just concerns with the latest cause dujour, you are a complete Neanderthal who is holding them back from complete educational excellence. The truly sad thing for our students is that it is not just with IT technology that this cause dujour phenomenon occurs in education, even well test teaching methodologies are constantly under attack for the latest and greatest new methods. Again with little or no regard to actual results.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is little likelihood to see a change to this trend as long as the justifications for so many public school Administrative positions lie on their being able to "innovate" in order to improve the instructional paradigm. About the only way to derail the roller coaster would be for parents to stand up and demand a return to core competencies and proven methodologies. To become more vocal about their children's education than the zealots currently controlling the "agenda of the buzz."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is even worse in the field of Educaiton where IT snake oil salesmen , use their skills to sell talks on new technologies that will revolutionize education as we know it .
They get paid to give these lectures to captive Administrative/Instructional audiences under the auspice of staff development .
Since many of these IT snake oil salesmen understand the audience so well - they know it is an easy sell because most attendees do not have a technology background .
        It helps if the technologies have already been hyped by the media for other purposes .
The latest push is for Web 2.0 technologies , which means just about anything .
Right now in our area it is for Social Networking , BLOGs and Wiki to engage the students in the 21st century classroom .
Previously , it was one to one computer instruction which was meant to be one device per students .
Although that movement has yet to end and still seems to have some life in it .
Started as desktops , then laptops and now is migrating to any form of electronic instruction device .
          You 'll never guess who would love to see one ?
You guessed it the device manufacturers .
It 's great for their bottom line but may not be the most efficient use of resources .
      The worst part for those in IT is that being education there is no shortage of hardcore zealots for any particular cause and if you dare to point out any flaws or even just concerns with the latest cause dujour , you are a complete Neanderthal who is holding them back from complete educational excellence .
The truly sad thing for our students is that it is not just with IT technology that this cause dujour phenomenon occurs in education , even well test teaching methodologies are constantly under attack for the latest and greatest new methods .
Again with little or no regard to actual results .
        There is little likelihood to see a change to this trend as long as the justifications for so many public school Administrative positions lie on their being able to " innovate " in order to improve the instructional paradigm .
About the only way to derail the roller coaster would be for parents to stand up and demand a return to core competencies and proven methodologies .
To become more vocal about their children 's education than the zealots currently controlling the " agenda of the buzz .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    Wow, this is even worse in the field of Educaiton where IT snake oil salesmen, use their skills to sell talks on new technologies that will revolutionize education as we know it.
They get paid to give these lectures to captive Administrative/Instructional audiences under the auspice of staff development.
Since many of these IT snake oil salesmen understand the audience so well - they know it is an easy sell because most attendees do not have a technology background.
        It helps if the technologies have already been hyped by the media for other purposes.
The latest push is for Web 2.0 technologies, which means just about anything.
Right now in our area it is for Social Networking, BLOGs and Wiki to engage the students in the 21st century classroom.
Previously, it was one to one computer instruction which was meant to be one device per students.
Although that movement has yet to end and still seems to have some life in it.
Started as desktops, then laptops and now is migrating to any form of electronic instruction device.
          You'll never guess who would love to see one?
You guessed it the device manufacturers.
It's great for their bottom line but may not be the most efficient use of resources.
      The worst part for those in IT is that being education there is no shortage of hardcore zealots for any particular cause and if you dare to point out any flaws or even just concerns with the latest cause dujour, you are a complete Neanderthal who is holding them back from complete educational excellence.
The truly sad thing for our students is that it is not just with IT technology that this cause dujour phenomenon occurs in education, even well test teaching methodologies are constantly under attack for the latest and greatest new methods.
Again with little or no regard to actual results.
        There is little likelihood to see a change to this trend as long as the justifications for so many public school Administrative positions lie on their being able to "innovate" in order to improve the instructional paradigm.
About the only way to derail the roller coaster would be for parents to stand up and demand a return to core competencies and proven methodologies.
To become more vocal about their children's education than the zealots currently controlling the "agenda of the buzz.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958960</id>
	<title>Re:It's always the hype problem.</title>
	<author>Logibeara</author>
	<datestamp>1257176040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait. Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal. Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.</p></div><p>Computational Perception and Developmental Robotics are a strong undertone in computer engineering courses at ISU. I don't know about other schools, but a HAL like computer is much less than a "dream goal". I can say without a doubt that it something similar will be engineered in much less than 2001 years. Technological growth is speeding up nearly exponentially(steam engine, combustion engine, flight, electricity, moonwalk) I'm sure everyone has heard the spiel.


<a href="http://www.ece.iastate.edu/~alexs/dissertation/dissertation.pdf" title="iastate.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.ece.iastate.edu/~alexs/dissertation/dissertation.pdf</a> [iastate.edu]



 Asst Professor at ISU, Alex Stoytchev's dissertation focuses specifically on building a system of robotic learning, commonly called "Developmental Robotics". While his robot only had the ability to categorize objects based on resonance sound and mass, it still shows that fundamental building blocks for a one day "HAL" are already in existence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , if you 're looking for HAL , you have another 2001 years to wait .
Nobody seriously is working toward that , except as a dream goal .
Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.Computational Perception and Developmental Robotics are a strong undertone in computer engineering courses at ISU .
I do n't know about other schools , but a HAL like computer is much less than a " dream goal " .
I can say without a doubt that it something similar will be engineered in much less than 2001 years .
Technological growth is speeding up nearly exponentially ( steam engine , combustion engine , flight , electricity , moonwalk ) I 'm sure everyone has heard the spiel .
http : //www.ece.iastate.edu/ ~ alexs/dissertation/dissertation.pdf [ iastate.edu ] Asst Professor at ISU , Alex Stoytchev 's dissertation focuses specifically on building a system of robotic learning , commonly called " Developmental Robotics " .
While his robot only had the ability to categorize objects based on resonance sound and mass , it still shows that fundamental building blocks for a one day " HAL " are already in existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait.
Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal.
Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.Computational Perception and Developmental Robotics are a strong undertone in computer engineering courses at ISU.
I don't know about other schools, but a HAL like computer is much less than a "dream goal".
I can say without a doubt that it something similar will be engineered in much less than 2001 years.
Technological growth is speeding up nearly exponentially(steam engine, combustion engine, flight, electricity, moonwalk) I'm sure everyone has heard the spiel.
http://www.ece.iastate.edu/~alexs/dissertation/dissertation.pdf [iastate.edu]



 Asst Professor at ISU, Alex Stoytchev's dissertation focuses specifically on building a system of robotic learning, commonly called "Developmental Robotics".
While his robot only had the ability to categorize objects based on resonance sound and mass, it still shows that fundamental building blocks for a one day "HAL" are already in existence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964628</id>
	<title>Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A true Artificial Intelligence would display sentience and self awareness coupled with free thought, as well as the ability to learn and create. I'm pretty sure that any mechanical system that accomplishes all these will be pretty easy to recognize as an actual AI - although I seriously doubt it will closely resemble a human intelligence. There have been some pretty amazing developments in learning systems lately (and DARPA has admitted they are hard at work on self aware cognitive systems), and a few of them have skirted the issue of awareness - ie; asking if they are alive or dead etc. Either way, I wonder if it will make a difference if we create a system that can demonstrate everything we consider necessary for a self aware intelligence. Perhaps the author could even be seen to ask what happens when we are confronted with the fact that we are machines as well - merely biologically evolved instead of mechanically created machines but machines none the less? I submit that a stunning piece of music or a intrinsically crafted book are all the more amazing because they are created by a 'mechanical process' whatever the being that fulfills those processes may be. Or to put it another way - math is no less beautiful because it is done on a calculator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A true Artificial Intelligence would display sentience and self awareness coupled with free thought , as well as the ability to learn and create .
I 'm pretty sure that any mechanical system that accomplishes all these will be pretty easy to recognize as an actual AI - although I seriously doubt it will closely resemble a human intelligence .
There have been some pretty amazing developments in learning systems lately ( and DARPA has admitted they are hard at work on self aware cognitive systems ) , and a few of them have skirted the issue of awareness - ie ; asking if they are alive or dead etc .
Either way , I wonder if it will make a difference if we create a system that can demonstrate everything we consider necessary for a self aware intelligence .
Perhaps the author could even be seen to ask what happens when we are confronted with the fact that we are machines as well - merely biologically evolved instead of mechanically created machines but machines none the less ?
I submit that a stunning piece of music or a intrinsically crafted book are all the more amazing because they are created by a 'mechanical process ' whatever the being that fulfills those processes may be .
Or to put it another way - math is no less beautiful because it is done on a calculator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A true Artificial Intelligence would display sentience and self awareness coupled with free thought, as well as the ability to learn and create.
I'm pretty sure that any mechanical system that accomplishes all these will be pretty easy to recognize as an actual AI - although I seriously doubt it will closely resemble a human intelligence.
There have been some pretty amazing developments in learning systems lately (and DARPA has admitted they are hard at work on self aware cognitive systems), and a few of them have skirted the issue of awareness - ie; asking if they are alive or dead etc.
Either way, I wonder if it will make a difference if we create a system that can demonstrate everything we consider necessary for a self aware intelligence.
Perhaps the author could even be seen to ask what happens when we are confronted with the fact that we are machines as well - merely biologically evolved instead of mechanically created machines but machines none the less?
I submit that a stunning piece of music or a intrinsically crafted book are all the more amazing because they are created by a 'mechanical process' whatever the being that fulfills those processes may be.
Or to put it another way - math is no less beautiful because it is done on a calculator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953710</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>jacksonj04</author>
	<datestamp>1257193920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We reduced five racks full of servers, plus a couple of shelves of non-rackmountable servers into three racks of gear consuming less energy (both themselves and cooling), reducing the amount of idle hardware, improving reliability and making administration easier.</p><p>Literally 10 steps down the hallway, the development team use individual machines running development environments to let them quickly test code on different systems.</p><p>I've seen virtualisation solve any problem thrown at it where the ultimate problem is that there needs to be systems doing different things running at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We reduced five racks full of servers , plus a couple of shelves of non-rackmountable servers into three racks of gear consuming less energy ( both themselves and cooling ) , reducing the amount of idle hardware , improving reliability and making administration easier.Literally 10 steps down the hallway , the development team use individual machines running development environments to let them quickly test code on different systems.I 've seen virtualisation solve any problem thrown at it where the ultimate problem is that there needs to be systems doing different things running at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We reduced five racks full of servers, plus a couple of shelves of non-rackmountable servers into three racks of gear consuming less energy (both themselves and cooling), reducing the amount of idle hardware, improving reliability and making administration easier.Literally 10 steps down the hallway, the development team use individual machines running development environments to let them quickly test code on different systems.I've seen virtualisation solve any problem thrown at it where the ultimate problem is that there needs to be systems doing different things running at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960654</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257191040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very simple. You consolidate all your servers as virtual servers so you only need one. Then you allocate a big honkin virtual server and move the others into that so you don't need any servers at all since they're all virtual. HEY where's my email go?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very simple .
You consolidate all your servers as virtual servers so you only need one .
Then you allocate a big honkin virtual server and move the others into that so you do n't need any servers at all since they 're all virtual .
HEY where 's my email go ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very simple.
You consolidate all your servers as virtual servers so you only need one.
Then you allocate a big honkin virtual server and move the others into that so you don't need any servers at all since they're all virtual.
HEY where's my email go?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953964</id>
	<title>I'm sick of AI meaning one thing</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1257195000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is AI always referred to as an attempt to create HAL? AI won't succeed until HAL kills the crew and begs for its life. *That* is the end goal for AI, as the general public sees it?</p><p>I would argue that AI is anything where a machine makes a decision without requiring permission. This includes automatic transmissions, autopilot (something they had back in the 30s!), and air conditioning; a device reacted to inputs by itself and made a decision to something without asking. I'd think the reason why AI is impossible is that, if you apply AI concepts as lay-people think of it,you'd see that there is no way to build a system that could account for all the possibilities, while also accounting for the reactions of the people a decision would affect.</p><p>How would an AI conditioner handle an Aunt Tillie (who loves it ice cold at all times), and Uncle John (who can't have it hot enough) in the same room at the same time? People are looking to AI to somehow please both Tillie and John simultaneously, which simply can't be done, and thus somehow this is "AI"'s fault.</p><p>Meanwhile, as it's been pointed out many many times, a lot of modern airplanes simply couldn't fly without computers performing thousands of little adjustments here-and-there to keep the ungainly thing flying straight. Likewise, haven't computers in cars improved car reliability by also being able to make a million tiny changes to things like fuel mixture, braking, airbags, etc.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is AI always referred to as an attempt to create HAL ?
AI wo n't succeed until HAL kills the crew and begs for its life .
* That * is the end goal for AI , as the general public sees it ? I would argue that AI is anything where a machine makes a decision without requiring permission .
This includes automatic transmissions , autopilot ( something they had back in the 30s !
) , and air conditioning ; a device reacted to inputs by itself and made a decision to something without asking .
I 'd think the reason why AI is impossible is that , if you apply AI concepts as lay-people think of it,you 'd see that there is no way to build a system that could account for all the possibilities , while also accounting for the reactions of the people a decision would affect.How would an AI conditioner handle an Aunt Tillie ( who loves it ice cold at all times ) , and Uncle John ( who ca n't have it hot enough ) in the same room at the same time ?
People are looking to AI to somehow please both Tillie and John simultaneously , which simply ca n't be done , and thus somehow this is " AI " 's fault.Meanwhile , as it 's been pointed out many many times , a lot of modern airplanes simply could n't fly without computers performing thousands of little adjustments here-and-there to keep the ungainly thing flying straight .
Likewise , have n't computers in cars improved car reliability by also being able to make a million tiny changes to things like fuel mixture , braking , airbags , etc .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is AI always referred to as an attempt to create HAL?
AI won't succeed until HAL kills the crew and begs for its life.
*That* is the end goal for AI, as the general public sees it?I would argue that AI is anything where a machine makes a decision without requiring permission.
This includes automatic transmissions, autopilot (something they had back in the 30s!
), and air conditioning; a device reacted to inputs by itself and made a decision to something without asking.
I'd think the reason why AI is impossible is that, if you apply AI concepts as lay-people think of it,you'd see that there is no way to build a system that could account for all the possibilities, while also accounting for the reactions of the people a decision would affect.How would an AI conditioner handle an Aunt Tillie (who loves it ice cold at all times), and Uncle John (who can't have it hot enough) in the same room at the same time?
People are looking to AI to somehow please both Tillie and John simultaneously, which simply can't be done, and thus somehow this is "AI"'s fault.Meanwhile, as it's been pointed out many many times, a lot of modern airplanes simply couldn't fly without computers performing thousands of little adjustments here-and-there to keep the ungainly thing flying straight.
Likewise, haven't computers in cars improved car reliability by also being able to make a million tiny changes to things like fuel mixture, braking, airbags, etc.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846</id>
	<title>Machine translation replacing human translation</title>
	<author>WormholeFiend</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just say the technology is not quite there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just say the technology is not quite there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just say the technology is not quite there yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960160</id>
	<title>Tablet PCs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tablet PCs are so last year. I assume you mean "netbooks." Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tablet PCs are so last year .
I assume you mean " netbooks .
" Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tablet PCs are so last year.
I assume you mean "netbooks.
" Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1257193140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers</p></div><p>You're full of crap.  At my company, a coworker and I are the only one handling the virtualization for a single rackful of servers.  He virtualizes Windows stuff because of stupid limitations in so much of the software.  For example, we still use a lot of legacy FoxPro databases.  Did you know that MS's own FoxPro client libraries are single-threaded and may only be loaded once per instance, so that a Windows box is only capable of executing one single query at a time?  We got around that by deploying several virtualized instances and querying them round-robin.  It's not perfect, but works as well as anything could given that FoxPro is involved in the formula.  None of those instances need to have more than about 256MB of RAM or any CPU to speak of, but we need several of them.  While that's an extreme example, it serves the point: sometimes with Windows you really want a specific application to be the only thing running on the machine, and virtualization gives that to us.</p><p>I do the same thing on the Unix side.  Suppose we're rolling out a new Internet-facing service.  I don't really want to install it on the same system as other critical services, but I don't want to ask my boss for a new 1U rackmount that will sit with a load average of 0.01 for the next 5 years.  Since we use FreeBSD, I find a lightly-loaded server and fire up a new jail instance.  Since each jail only requires the disk space to hold software that's not part of the base system, I can do things like deploying a Jabber server in its own virtualized environment in only 100MB.</p><p>I don't think our $2,000 Dell rackmounts count as "super-servers" by any definition.  If we have a machine sitting their mostly idle, and can virtualize a new OS instance with damn near zero resource waste that solves a very real business or security need, then why on earth not other than because it doesn't appeal to the warped tastes of certain purists?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many , many serversYou 're full of crap .
At my company , a coworker and I are the only one handling the virtualization for a single rackful of servers .
He virtualizes Windows stuff because of stupid limitations in so much of the software .
For example , we still use a lot of legacy FoxPro databases .
Did you know that MS 's own FoxPro client libraries are single-threaded and may only be loaded once per instance , so that a Windows box is only capable of executing one single query at a time ?
We got around that by deploying several virtualized instances and querying them round-robin .
It 's not perfect , but works as well as anything could given that FoxPro is involved in the formula .
None of those instances need to have more than about 256MB of RAM or any CPU to speak of , but we need several of them .
While that 's an extreme example , it serves the point : sometimes with Windows you really want a specific application to be the only thing running on the machine , and virtualization gives that to us.I do the same thing on the Unix side .
Suppose we 're rolling out a new Internet-facing service .
I do n't really want to install it on the same system as other critical services , but I do n't want to ask my boss for a new 1U rackmount that will sit with a load average of 0.01 for the next 5 years .
Since we use FreeBSD , I find a lightly-loaded server and fire up a new jail instance .
Since each jail only requires the disk space to hold software that 's not part of the base system , I can do things like deploying a Jabber server in its own virtualized environment in only 100MB.I do n't think our $ 2,000 Dell rackmounts count as " super-servers " by any definition .
If we have a machine sitting their mostly idle , and can virtualize a new OS instance with damn near zero resource waste that solves a very real business or security need , then why on earth not other than because it does n't appeal to the warped tastes of certain purists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many serversYou're full of crap.
At my company, a coworker and I are the only one handling the virtualization for a single rackful of servers.
He virtualizes Windows stuff because of stupid limitations in so much of the software.
For example, we still use a lot of legacy FoxPro databases.
Did you know that MS's own FoxPro client libraries are single-threaded and may only be loaded once per instance, so that a Windows box is only capable of executing one single query at a time?
We got around that by deploying several virtualized instances and querying them round-robin.
It's not perfect, but works as well as anything could given that FoxPro is involved in the formula.
None of those instances need to have more than about 256MB of RAM or any CPU to speak of, but we need several of them.
While that's an extreme example, it serves the point: sometimes with Windows you really want a specific application to be the only thing running on the machine, and virtualization gives that to us.I do the same thing on the Unix side.
Suppose we're rolling out a new Internet-facing service.
I don't really want to install it on the same system as other critical services, but I don't want to ask my boss for a new 1U rackmount that will sit with a load average of 0.01 for the next 5 years.
Since we use FreeBSD, I find a lightly-loaded server and fire up a new jail instance.
Since each jail only requires the disk space to hold software that's not part of the base system, I can do things like deploying a Jabber server in its own virtualized environment in only 100MB.I don't think our $2,000 Dell rackmounts count as "super-servers" by any definition.
If we have a machine sitting their mostly idle, and can virtualize a new OS instance with damn near zero resource waste that solves a very real business or security need, then why on earth not other than because it doesn't appeal to the warped tastes of certain purists?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954020</id>
	<title>PC, Heal thyself!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"self-healing" software designed to repair its OS and/or other SW. turns out it takes more man-hours to maintain/administrate/repair it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" self-healing " software designed to repair its OS and/or other SW. turns out it takes more man-hours to maintain/administrate/repair it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"self-healing" software designed to repair its OS and/or other SW. turns out it takes more man-hours to maintain/administrate/repair it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954964</id>
	<title>Re:Tech cure-all missing option: emacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, of course, what text editor to use. Fortunately, you can install VI on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , of course , what text editor to use .
Fortunately , you can install VI on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, of course, what text editor to use.
Fortunately, you can install VI on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955924</id>
	<title>The anti-spam space is rife with these</title>
	<author>Arrogant-Bastard</author>
	<datestamp>1257160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There have been so many amazingly stupid approaches that it's difficult to know where to begin.
<p>
But let's start with "Spam as a technical problem is solved by SPF", one of the most
spectacularly blatant bits of hype ever published.  The idiot responsible for this had,
and has, no anti-spam credentials -- yet he managed to convince a large number of
very stupid people that he had The Answer.  Never mind that many people with superior
credentials and superior minds said it wouldn't work: it was the panacea!
</p><p>
Of course, spammers were the earliest and most prolific adopters of SPF, which has
since -- finally -- been recognized as pure snake oil with no value whatsoever.
</p><p>
Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering, another technology hyped
as The Answer.  Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could
defeat it at will -- and that they have, for years.  There are STILL people out
burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates, in a self-defeating exercise in
futility, because they haven't realized yet that spammers can run the same
algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam.  And many do.
</p><p>
And then there's sender address verification (SAV), used only by selfish jerks
who think it's okay to use others' resources and -- worse -- who think it's
just fine to do their part to help spammers conduct DoS attacks.  This method
has of course been completely discredited for years, but the cargo cult out
there will still cluelessly claim that it's a good idea.
</p><p>
And then there are the vendors, selling hastily-thrown-together crap that
puts perfectly good open source software on lousy hardware and pastes a
web interface over it for the inferior people who can't use a command line,
and therefore have absolutely no business attempting system administration.
Is there any wonder that these systems are incredibly expensive, wildly
inaccurate, poorly maintained, and quite often SOURCES of spam?
</p><p>
Our problems are bad enough, thanks to spammers.  But the people responsible
for these have made them worse, and in the case of the vendors, they've done
it for profit.  I'm sure they'll try to cash in on the next problem too,
even if they have to help make it worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been so many amazingly stupid approaches that it 's difficult to know where to begin .
But let 's start with " Spam as a technical problem is solved by SPF " , one of the most spectacularly blatant bits of hype ever published .
The idiot responsible for this had , and has , no anti-spam credentials -- yet he managed to convince a large number of very stupid people that he had The Answer .
Never mind that many people with superior credentials and superior minds said it would n't work : it was the panacea !
Of course , spammers were the earliest and most prolific adopters of SPF , which has since -- finally -- been recognized as pure snake oil with no value whatsoever .
Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering , another technology hyped as The Answer .
Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could defeat it at will -- and that they have , for years .
There are STILL people out burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates , in a self-defeating exercise in futility , because they have n't realized yet that spammers can run the same algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam .
And many do .
And then there 's sender address verification ( SAV ) , used only by selfish jerks who think it 's okay to use others ' resources and -- worse -- who think it 's just fine to do their part to help spammers conduct DoS attacks .
This method has of course been completely discredited for years , but the cargo cult out there will still cluelessly claim that it 's a good idea .
And then there are the vendors , selling hastily-thrown-together crap that puts perfectly good open source software on lousy hardware and pastes a web interface over it for the inferior people who ca n't use a command line , and therefore have absolutely no business attempting system administration .
Is there any wonder that these systems are incredibly expensive , wildly inaccurate , poorly maintained , and quite often SOURCES of spam ?
Our problems are bad enough , thanks to spammers .
But the people responsible for these have made them worse , and in the case of the vendors , they 've done it for profit .
I 'm sure they 'll try to cash in on the next problem too , even if they have to help make it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been so many amazingly stupid approaches that it's difficult to know where to begin.
But let's start with "Spam as a technical problem is solved by SPF", one of the most
spectacularly blatant bits of hype ever published.
The idiot responsible for this had,
and has, no anti-spam credentials -- yet he managed to convince a large number of
very stupid people that he had The Answer.
Never mind that many people with superior
credentials and superior minds said it wouldn't work: it was the panacea!
Of course, spammers were the earliest and most prolific adopters of SPF, which has
since -- finally -- been recognized as pure snake oil with no value whatsoever.
Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering, another technology hyped
as The Answer.
Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could
defeat it at will -- and that they have, for years.
There are STILL people out
burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates, in a self-defeating exercise in
futility, because they haven't realized yet that spammers can run the same
algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam.
And many do.
And then there's sender address verification (SAV), used only by selfish jerks
who think it's okay to use others' resources and -- worse -- who think it's
just fine to do their part to help spammers conduct DoS attacks.
This method
has of course been completely discredited for years, but the cargo cult out
there will still cluelessly claim that it's a good idea.
And then there are the vendors, selling hastily-thrown-together crap that
puts perfectly good open source software on lousy hardware and pastes a
web interface over it for the inferior people who can't use a command line,
and therefore have absolutely no business attempting system administration.
Is there any wonder that these systems are incredibly expensive, wildly
inaccurate, poorly maintained, and quite often SOURCES of spam?
Our problems are bad enough, thanks to spammers.
But the people responsible
for these have made them worse, and in the case of the vendors, they've done
it for profit.
I'm sure they'll try to cash in on the next problem too,
even if they have to help make it worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954988</id>
	<title>Enterprise Social Networking == a news server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the company I used to work for,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.misc in an internal newsgroup hierarchy was the best social networking tool in the company, bar none. Many a time I got help on problems and was able to help others in return. It's also interesting that the news server was run as an unofficial operation throughout and was several times threatened with closure by PHBs. Luckily it survived by judicious policy revision and support from a few clueful senior managers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the company I used to work for , .misc in an internal newsgroup hierarchy was the best social networking tool in the company , bar none .
Many a time I got help on problems and was able to help others in return .
It 's also interesting that the news server was run as an unofficial operation throughout and was several times threatened with closure by PHBs .
Luckily it survived by judicious policy revision and support from a few clueful senior managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the company I used to work for, .misc in an internal newsgroup hierarchy was the best social networking tool in the company, bar none.
Many a time I got help on problems and was able to help others in return.
It's also interesting that the news server was run as an unofficial operation throughout and was several times threatened with closure by PHBs.
Luckily it survived by judicious policy revision and support from a few clueful senior managers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954304</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257153240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;"Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple"<br>Yes, Boot the CD, Next, Next, Finish.<br>But how about setting it up correctly?</p><p>How about the extra complexity added by that layer?<br>Extra vulnerabilities?<br>Hardware support? With ESXi you can't map serial ports to virtual servers. Would you throw lots of dollas after ESX just to be able to do that?<br>Direct access to specific hardware?<br>Not to mention graphics performance (not that you'll normally need that for servers, but you probably get the point....)</p><p>&gt;"I have CONSOLE access from remote sites[...] You can't do it safely without virtualization"<br>Ever heard of e.g. iLO for HP? And Dell also has the same functionality.</p><p>Sorry, but it's not just "hey, virtualize everything, it's great!"<br>It's "think before you act. You will benefit from it if you *plan* and *design* it properly."</p><p>(Just adding: I think virtualization is great, I just don't believe that it's good for everything)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Setting up VMWare , for example , is relatively simple " Yes , Boot the CD , Next , Next , Finish.But how about setting it up correctly ? How about the extra complexity added by that layer ? Extra vulnerabilities ? Hardware support ?
With ESXi you ca n't map serial ports to virtual servers .
Would you throw lots of dollas after ESX just to be able to do that ? Direct access to specific hardware ? Not to mention graphics performance ( not that you 'll normally need that for servers , but you probably get the point.... ) &gt; " I have CONSOLE access from remote sites [ ... ] You ca n't do it safely without virtualization " Ever heard of e.g .
iLO for HP ?
And Dell also has the same functionality.Sorry , but it 's not just " hey , virtualize everything , it 's great !
" It 's " think before you act .
You will benefit from it if you * plan * and * design * it properly .
" ( Just adding : I think virtualization is great , I just do n't believe that it 's good for everything )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;"Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple"Yes, Boot the CD, Next, Next, Finish.But how about setting it up correctly?How about the extra complexity added by that layer?Extra vulnerabilities?Hardware support?
With ESXi you can't map serial ports to virtual servers.
Would you throw lots of dollas after ESX just to be able to do that?Direct access to specific hardware?Not to mention graphics performance (not that you'll normally need that for servers, but you probably get the point....)&gt;"I have CONSOLE access from remote sites[...] You can't do it safely without virtualization"Ever heard of e.g.
iLO for HP?
And Dell also has the same functionality.Sorry, but it's not just "hey, virtualize everything, it's great!
"It's "think before you act.
You will benefit from it if you *plan* and *design* it properly.
"(Just adding: I think virtualization is great, I just don't believe that it's good for everything)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954068</id>
	<title>Re:Machine translation replacing human translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's just say the technology is not quite there yet.</p></div><p>Oh really? I think that <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate\_c?hl=en&amp;sl=ja&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://slashdot.jp/&amp;usg=ALkJrhgSD86KCbuI" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">this translation of Slashdot Japan</a> [google.com] is very... interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just say the technology is not quite there yet.Oh really ?
I think that this translation of Slashdot Japan [ google.com ] is very... interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just say the technology is not quite there yet.Oh really?
I think that this translation of Slashdot Japan [google.com] is very... interesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954488</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1257154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!"  That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.</p></div><p>Defiantly in need of the silhouette of Joel, Crow and Tom then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there was a period very early on ( '50s ) when it was naively thought that " we 'll have thinking machines within five years !
" That 's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950 's.Defiantly in need of the silhouette of Joel , Crow and Tom then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!
"  That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.Defiantly in need of the silhouette of Joel, Crow and Tom then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988</id>
	<title>Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind.''</p><p>The problem is that, if it isn't that, then what is "artificial intelligence", rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Having taken several courses on AI , I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind .
''The problem is that , if it is n't that , then what is " artificial intelligence " , rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind.
''The problem is that, if it isn't that, then what is "artificial intelligence", rather than flashy marketing speak for just another bunch of algorithms?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953168</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1257191580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue I have with both virtualization and cloud computing is a lack of concrete assessment.  They are touted as wunder-technologies, and while they have their place and their use, a lot of folks are leaping into them with little thought as to how they integrate into existing technologies and the kind of overhead (hardware, software, wetware) that will go with it.</p><p>Virtualization certainly has some great uses, but I've seen an increasing number of organizations thinking they can turf their server rooms and big chunks of their IT staff by believing the hype that everything will become smaller and easier to manage.  The technology is real, has some excellent uses and in a well-planned infrastructure upgrade can indeed deliver real results.  But the sales pitch seems to be "replace 10 servers with 1, fire most of your IT department and away you go!"</p><p>As to cloud computing, well, it's nothing more than a new iteration of a distributed computing model that dates back forty years or more.  In the olden days (back when I was just a strippling) we called it the client-server model.  Again, it's a technology was potentially excellent uses, but it, even moreso than virtualization has been hyped beyond all reason.  There are profound security and data integrity issues that go along with cloud computing that seem to be swept under the rug.  Again, it's the "put your data on the cloud, fire most of your IT department and away you go!"</p><p>I'm fortunate in that I have a lot of say in how my budget is spent, but I've heard of guys who are basically having management shove this sort of stuff down their throats, and, of course, win or lose, it's the IT department that wears it when the bloom comes off the rose.</p><p>Quite frankly I despise marketers.  I think they are one of the greatest evils that have ever been created, a whole legion of professional bullshitters whose job it is to basically lie and distort the truth to shove out products that are either not ready for prime time or don't (and never will) deliver on the promises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue I have with both virtualization and cloud computing is a lack of concrete assessment .
They are touted as wunder-technologies , and while they have their place and their use , a lot of folks are leaping into them with little thought as to how they integrate into existing technologies and the kind of overhead ( hardware , software , wetware ) that will go with it.Virtualization certainly has some great uses , but I 've seen an increasing number of organizations thinking they can turf their server rooms and big chunks of their IT staff by believing the hype that everything will become smaller and easier to manage .
The technology is real , has some excellent uses and in a well-planned infrastructure upgrade can indeed deliver real results .
But the sales pitch seems to be " replace 10 servers with 1 , fire most of your IT department and away you go !
" As to cloud computing , well , it 's nothing more than a new iteration of a distributed computing model that dates back forty years or more .
In the olden days ( back when I was just a strippling ) we called it the client-server model .
Again , it 's a technology was potentially excellent uses , but it , even moreso than virtualization has been hyped beyond all reason .
There are profound security and data integrity issues that go along with cloud computing that seem to be swept under the rug .
Again , it 's the " put your data on the cloud , fire most of your IT department and away you go !
" I 'm fortunate in that I have a lot of say in how my budget is spent , but I 've heard of guys who are basically having management shove this sort of stuff down their throats , and , of course , win or lose , it 's the IT department that wears it when the bloom comes off the rose.Quite frankly I despise marketers .
I think they are one of the greatest evils that have ever been created , a whole legion of professional bullshitters whose job it is to basically lie and distort the truth to shove out products that are either not ready for prime time or do n't ( and never will ) deliver on the promises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue I have with both virtualization and cloud computing is a lack of concrete assessment.
They are touted as wunder-technologies, and while they have their place and their use, a lot of folks are leaping into them with little thought as to how they integrate into existing technologies and the kind of overhead (hardware, software, wetware) that will go with it.Virtualization certainly has some great uses, but I've seen an increasing number of organizations thinking they can turf their server rooms and big chunks of their IT staff by believing the hype that everything will become smaller and easier to manage.
The technology is real, has some excellent uses and in a well-planned infrastructure upgrade can indeed deliver real results.
But the sales pitch seems to be "replace 10 servers with 1, fire most of your IT department and away you go!
"As to cloud computing, well, it's nothing more than a new iteration of a distributed computing model that dates back forty years or more.
In the olden days (back when I was just a strippling) we called it the client-server model.
Again, it's a technology was potentially excellent uses, but it, even moreso than virtualization has been hyped beyond all reason.
There are profound security and data integrity issues that go along with cloud computing that seem to be swept under the rug.
Again, it's the "put your data on the cloud, fire most of your IT department and away you go!
"I'm fortunate in that I have a lot of say in how my budget is spent, but I've heard of guys who are basically having management shove this sort of stuff down their throats, and, of course, win or lose, it's the IT department that wears it when the bloom comes off the rose.Quite frankly I despise marketers.
I think they are one of the greatest evils that have ever been created, a whole legion of professional bullshitters whose job it is to basically lie and distort the truth to shove out products that are either not ready for prime time or don't (and never will) deliver on the promises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956736</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualization has worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257165060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea- but just because it has its uses doesn't mean it isn't all hype or at least mostly hype. Virtualization is great- I use it for niche stuff too. Everything from running my own virtual server to top-secret stuff I can't disclose here.  I think the benefits that the sales guys are using to sell it are weak and the real benefits use technical folks get from it are more along the lines of management/consolidation. Consolidation doesn't necessarily mean saving money though.  Sometimes it does. It is certainly cheaper for me to rent out a virtual server than co-locate a server when my needs aren't all that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea- but just because it has its uses does n't mean it is n't all hype or at least mostly hype .
Virtualization is great- I use it for niche stuff too .
Everything from running my own virtual server to top-secret stuff I ca n't disclose here .
I think the benefits that the sales guys are using to sell it are weak and the real benefits use technical folks get from it are more along the lines of management/consolidation .
Consolidation does n't necessarily mean saving money though .
Sometimes it does .
It is certainly cheaper for me to rent out a virtual server than co-locate a server when my needs are n't all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea- but just because it has its uses doesn't mean it isn't all hype or at least mostly hype.
Virtualization is great- I use it for niche stuff too.
Everything from running my own virtual server to top-secret stuff I can't disclose here.
I think the benefits that the sales guys are using to sell it are weak and the real benefits use technical folks get from it are more along the lines of management/consolidation.
Consolidation doesn't necessarily mean saving money though.
Sometimes it does.
It is certainly cheaper for me to rent out a virtual server than co-locate a server when my needs aren't all that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954544</id>
	<title>They worked - just not well enough</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1257154380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these technologies, with the possible exception of AI, basically worked, and did what they were
supposed to do.
The catch was they didn't do it well enough, they were too expensive (financially or otherwise)
to deploy, or the problem they solved wasn't worth solving.

</p><p>I still remember seeing the mind-boggling array of supposedly-necessary CASE
tools that people
used on their VAXen when I worked at DEC. I could never figure out how people
could actually afford to use them, nor did I ever find any applications people had
actually created with them.

</p><p>The problem "solved" by thin clients was better solved in other ways. I remember telling
potential customers how cool it was to boot an obsolete PC off a floppy then run
diskless over the network, when the real answer was to junk the PC and buy a new one.

</p><p>AI is another matter entirely. We have expert systems and other goodies, but
fully-blown AI just never happened. Will it ever happen? Probably. When? Your guess is
as good as mine. It certainly hasn't happened yet.

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these technologies , with the possible exception of AI , basically worked , and did what they were supposed to do .
The catch was they did n't do it well enough , they were too expensive ( financially or otherwise ) to deploy , or the problem they solved was n't worth solving .
I still remember seeing the mind-boggling array of supposedly-necessary CASE tools that people used on their VAXen when I worked at DEC. I could never figure out how people could actually afford to use them , nor did I ever find any applications people had actually created with them .
The problem " solved " by thin clients was better solved in other ways .
I remember telling potential customers how cool it was to boot an obsolete PC off a floppy then run diskless over the network , when the real answer was to junk the PC and buy a new one .
AI is another matter entirely .
We have expert systems and other goodies , but fully-blown AI just never happened .
Will it ever happen ?
Probably. When ?
Your guess is as good as mine .
It certainly has n't happened yet .
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these technologies, with the possible exception of AI, basically worked, and did what they were
supposed to do.
The catch was they didn't do it well enough, they were too expensive (financially or otherwise)
to deploy, or the problem they solved wasn't worth solving.
I still remember seeing the mind-boggling array of supposedly-necessary CASE
tools that people
used on their VAXen when I worked at DEC. I could never figure out how people
could actually afford to use them, nor did I ever find any applications people had
actually created with them.
The problem "solved" by thin clients was better solved in other ways.
I remember telling
potential customers how cool it was to boot an obsolete PC off a floppy then run
diskless over the network, when the real answer was to junk the PC and buy a new one.
AI is another matter entirely.
We have expert systems and other goodies, but
fully-blown AI just never happened.
Will it ever happen?
Probably. When?
Your guess is
as good as mine.
It certainly hasn't happened yet.
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1622218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964942
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29965612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29964344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29963610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29962880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29957904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29959312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29961468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29966578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29952846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29960746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29956340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29955278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29958010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1622218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29953006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1622218.29954344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
