<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_24_0634220</id>
	<title>New Virginia IT Systems Lack Network Backup</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259068620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>1sockchuck writes <i>"Virginia's new state IT system is experiencing downtime in key services because of a mind-boggling oversight: the state apparently <a href="http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/Business/local/article/DMVV21\_20091120-222606/307063/">neglected to require network backup</a> in a 10-year, $2.3 billion outsourcing deal with Northrop Grumman. The issue is causing serious downtime for state services. This fall the Virginia DMV has suffered 12 system outages spanning a total of more than 100 hours, and downtime hampered the state transportation department when a state of emergency was declared during the Nov. 11 Northeaster."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1sockchuck writes " Virginia 's new state IT system is experiencing downtime in key services because of a mind-boggling oversight : the state apparently neglected to require network backup in a 10-year , $ 2.3 billion outsourcing deal with Northrop Grumman .
The issue is causing serious downtime for state services .
This fall the Virginia DMV has suffered 12 system outages spanning a total of more than 100 hours , and downtime hampered the state transportation department when a state of emergency was declared during the Nov. 11 Northeaster .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1sockchuck writes "Virginia's new state IT system is experiencing downtime in key services because of a mind-boggling oversight: the state apparently neglected to require network backup in a 10-year, $2.3 billion outsourcing deal with Northrop Grumman.
The issue is causing serious downtime for state services.
This fall the Virginia DMV has suffered 12 system outages spanning a total of more than 100 hours, and downtime hampered the state transportation department when a state of emergency was declared during the Nov. 11 Northeaster.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214138</id>
	<title>Re:Staffed by 2nd rate people?</title>
	<author>decsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1259080200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly, but today IT is one of NG "core businesses", along with aircraft, missiles and space, land vehicles and ships.  NG is currently the 3rd largest defense contractor, after Lock-mart and Boeing. Sometimes when big defense contractors implement civilian systems they really do put the 2nd team on it, because they know where their real bread and butter comes from (hint: 5 sided polygon). Another common tactic is bait and switch: put the A team on the proposal and the B team on the implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly , but today IT is one of NG " core businesses " , along with aircraft , missiles and space , land vehicles and ships .
NG is currently the 3rd largest defense contractor , after Lock-mart and Boeing .
Sometimes when big defense contractors implement civilian systems they really do put the 2nd team on it , because they know where their real bread and butter comes from ( hint : 5 sided polygon ) .
Another common tactic is bait and switch : put the A team on the proposal and the B team on the implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly, but today IT is one of NG "core businesses", along with aircraft, missiles and space, land vehicles and ships.
NG is currently the 3rd largest defense contractor, after Lock-mart and Boeing.
Sometimes when big defense contractors implement civilian systems they really do put the 2nd team on it, because they know where their real bread and butter comes from (hint: 5 sided polygon).
Another common tactic is bait and switch: put the A team on the proposal and the B team on the implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218920</id>
	<title>Over how many individual systems?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If every city in a the state has their own DMV office there would be about 30 offices with 100 outages over 6 months.<br>That means every office was out 3.3 times in six months.<br>Didn't they get a massive flood?<br>Doesn't sound bad to me my office would go offline if it was flooded with 5ft of water.</p><p>The system is not that critical. Still though for 2.3B they should have had business continuity built in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If every city in a the state has their own DMV office there would be about 30 offices with 100 outages over 6 months.That means every office was out 3.3 times in six months.Did n't they get a massive flood ? Does n't sound bad to me my office would go offline if it was flooded with 5ft of water.The system is not that critical .
Still though for 2.3B they should have had business continuity built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If every city in a the state has their own DMV office there would be about 30 offices with 100 outages over 6 months.That means every office was out 3.3 times in six months.Didn't they get a massive flood?Doesn't sound bad to me my office would go offline if it was flooded with 5ft of water.The system is not that critical.
Still though for 2.3B they should have had business continuity built in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218720</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>Ster</author>
	<datestamp>1259057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Contagion" title="memory-alpha.org">Contagion</a> [memory-alpha.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contagion [ memory-alpha.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contagion [memory-alpha.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214438</id>
	<title>End the Outsourcing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living in the DC area i see all sorts of crap going on with contractors. The amount of money the fed wastes on contractors should cause us to rise up and slay them.  But so many profit (my GF and i included) that it seems unlikely that it will change soon.  The CIA for instance has crippled itself by using so many contractors, people who SHOULD be on the payroll.  Instead they line the pockets of executives and share holders, shitting away millions upon millions in overhead costs.  This means much of the talent and experience belongs to companies like NG and not to the country.  They can jack up their rates all they want and the gov't will have to pay.  If they don't hire the contractor it doesn't get done.  It's wasteful and potentially dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in the DC area i see all sorts of crap going on with contractors .
The amount of money the fed wastes on contractors should cause us to rise up and slay them .
But so many profit ( my GF and i included ) that it seems unlikely that it will change soon .
The CIA for instance has crippled itself by using so many contractors , people who SHOULD be on the payroll .
Instead they line the pockets of executives and share holders , shitting away millions upon millions in overhead costs .
This means much of the talent and experience belongs to companies like NG and not to the country .
They can jack up their rates all they want and the gov't will have to pay .
If they do n't hire the contractor it does n't get done .
It 's wasteful and potentially dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in the DC area i see all sorts of crap going on with contractors.
The amount of money the fed wastes on contractors should cause us to rise up and slay them.
But so many profit (my GF and i included) that it seems unlikely that it will change soon.
The CIA for instance has crippled itself by using so many contractors, people who SHOULD be on the payroll.
Instead they line the pockets of executives and share holders, shitting away millions upon millions in overhead costs.
This means much of the talent and experience belongs to companies like NG and not to the country.
They can jack up their rates all they want and the gov't will have to pay.
If they don't hire the contractor it doesn't get done.
It's wasteful and potentially dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214282</id>
	<title>Re:Network connections, not system backups...</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1259080680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if you ask me?  As much as anything, this illustrates why the nation's broadband infrastructure is sadly inadequate....</p><p>What are you supposed to do in many of these locations as an alternate to a DSL circuit?  Dial backup with 56K modem, I suppose?  Oh yeah, THAT will run great with today's bandwidth-saturating apps.</p><p>Oh, perhaps they should spend the money for satellite Internet at each location then?  Big up-front equipment and setup expense for something with high latency and relatively high monthly costs that has plenty of service interruption issues of its own (bad weather, etc.).</p><p>Seriously, *many* businesses today (like the one I work for now) are getting royally screwed, paying upwards of $700 a month for a lousy 1.5 to 3mbit T1 circuit, simply because no other options really exist.  By comparison, if we only happened to be located a few miles closer to an existing cable installation, we could get Charter cable's broadband in here with download speeds of up to 100mbit (and far better upload speeds than our T1 gives us!) for about $150 per month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you ask me ?
As much as anything , this illustrates why the nation 's broadband infrastructure is sadly inadequate....What are you supposed to do in many of these locations as an alternate to a DSL circuit ?
Dial backup with 56K modem , I suppose ?
Oh yeah , THAT will run great with today 's bandwidth-saturating apps.Oh , perhaps they should spend the money for satellite Internet at each location then ?
Big up-front equipment and setup expense for something with high latency and relatively high monthly costs that has plenty of service interruption issues of its own ( bad weather , etc .
) .Seriously , * many * businesses today ( like the one I work for now ) are getting royally screwed , paying upwards of $ 700 a month for a lousy 1.5 to 3mbit T1 circuit , simply because no other options really exist .
By comparison , if we only happened to be located a few miles closer to an existing cable installation , we could get Charter cable 's broadband in here with download speeds of up to 100mbit ( and far better upload speeds than our T1 gives us !
) for about $ 150 per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you ask me?
As much as anything, this illustrates why the nation's broadband infrastructure is sadly inadequate....What are you supposed to do in many of these locations as an alternate to a DSL circuit?
Dial backup with 56K modem, I suppose?
Oh yeah, THAT will run great with today's bandwidth-saturating apps.Oh, perhaps they should spend the money for satellite Internet at each location then?
Big up-front equipment and setup expense for something with high latency and relatively high monthly costs that has plenty of service interruption issues of its own (bad weather, etc.
).Seriously, *many* businesses today (like the one I work for now) are getting royally screwed, paying upwards of $700 a month for a lousy 1.5 to 3mbit T1 circuit, simply because no other options really exist.
By comparison, if we only happened to be located a few miles closer to an existing cable installation, we could get Charter cable's broadband in here with download speeds of up to 100mbit (and far better upload speeds than our T1 gives us!
) for about $150 per month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213206</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, the only benefit to designing a truly appropriate system is that you get to snicker derisively when the system installed by the guys that underbid you goes belly up. Alas, that doesn't pay the bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the only benefit to designing a truly appropriate system is that you get to snicker derisively when the system installed by the guys that underbid you goes belly up .
Alas , that does n't pay the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the only benefit to designing a truly appropriate system is that you get to snicker derisively when the system installed by the guys that underbid you goes belly up.
Alas, that doesn't pay the bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215672</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1259086080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally agree with your sentiment about businesses wanting to do the most for their customers, but it's a little different in government.  The government needs to solicit bids every time it asks for something and as mountains of red tape.  This tends to prevent a business from generating a good relationship with government agencies based on providing things that go above and beyond what is requested.  The government can never just sort of call up the sales rep of a company that they have a good relationship with and order something new or extra that is not previously been part of some agreement or process.</p><p>While it is a little over the top to say that businesses are "just in it to make money", the fact is that the good business practice of going the extra mile for the customer is to create a relationship which will encourage both quality work and more business for the vendor.  The government cannot go straight to a vendor for extra add-ons nor can they have any sort of loyalty to a company that has done it's best to treat them well in the past.</p><p>Since the ability to have a direct sort of relationship with the public sector is severely hampered by the red-tape and bidding process, the corps tend to find it easier to create their relationships with the politicians who can either control the process or go around it by creating new laws or budget proposals.  This is an unintentional side effect of the lowest bid process, but a completely predictable result of the amount of over-regulation that goes on in the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally agree with your sentiment about businesses wanting to do the most for their customers , but it 's a little different in government .
The government needs to solicit bids every time it asks for something and as mountains of red tape .
This tends to prevent a business from generating a good relationship with government agencies based on providing things that go above and beyond what is requested .
The government can never just sort of call up the sales rep of a company that they have a good relationship with and order something new or extra that is not previously been part of some agreement or process.While it is a little over the top to say that businesses are " just in it to make money " , the fact is that the good business practice of going the extra mile for the customer is to create a relationship which will encourage both quality work and more business for the vendor .
The government can not go straight to a vendor for extra add-ons nor can they have any sort of loyalty to a company that has done it 's best to treat them well in the past.Since the ability to have a direct sort of relationship with the public sector is severely hampered by the red-tape and bidding process , the corps tend to find it easier to create their relationships with the politicians who can either control the process or go around it by creating new laws or budget proposals .
This is an unintentional side effect of the lowest bid process , but a completely predictable result of the amount of over-regulation that goes on in the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally agree with your sentiment about businesses wanting to do the most for their customers, but it's a little different in government.
The government needs to solicit bids every time it asks for something and as mountains of red tape.
This tends to prevent a business from generating a good relationship with government agencies based on providing things that go above and beyond what is requested.
The government can never just sort of call up the sales rep of a company that they have a good relationship with and order something new or extra that is not previously been part of some agreement or process.While it is a little over the top to say that businesses are "just in it to make money", the fact is that the good business practice of going the extra mile for the customer is to create a relationship which will encourage both quality work and more business for the vendor.
The government cannot go straight to a vendor for extra add-ons nor can they have any sort of loyalty to a company that has done it's best to treat them well in the past.Since the ability to have a direct sort of relationship with the public sector is severely hampered by the red-tape and bidding process, the corps tend to find it easier to create their relationships with the politicians who can either control the process or go around it by creating new laws or budget proposals.
This is an unintentional side effect of the lowest bid process, but a completely predictable result of the amount of over-regulation that goes on in the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214086</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1259079960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!</i></p><p>And how is your Enron stock doing these days?  Managed to avoid electrocution in your bathroom from shitty contractor wiring?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I 'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care ! And how is your Enron stock doing these days ?
Managed to avoid electrocution in your bathroom from shitty contractor wiring ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!And how is your Enron stock doing these days?
Managed to avoid electrocution in your bathroom from shitty contractor wiring?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216494</id>
	<title>Re:Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>jcnnghm</author>
	<datestamp>1259089920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.</p></div><p>The government didn't include network redundancy in the RFP.  Poor planning on the part of the government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out did n't have redundancy , backup , " Coulter said yesterday .
" The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network.The government did n't include network redundancy in the RFP .
Poor planning on the part of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday.
"The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network.The government didn't include network redundancy in the RFP.
Poor planning on the part of the government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213716</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh...  Management not long ago was demanding five nines uptime for all critical systems, including external-facing websites (government agency communicating with the public).  We asked them if they meant in terms of planned or unplanned outages.  They said unplanned.  We told them it would be expensive.  They said to prove it.  We gave them a number.  They all but told us we were lying.  We showed them a case study.  They said we were cherry-picking data and hired a consultant, who came back with a bigger number than we did.  It's never been mentioned since, and suddenly, three nines is considered nice-to-have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh... Management not long ago was demanding five nines uptime for all critical systems , including external-facing websites ( government agency communicating with the public ) .
We asked them if they meant in terms of planned or unplanned outages .
They said unplanned .
We told them it would be expensive .
They said to prove it .
We gave them a number .
They all but told us we were lying .
We showed them a case study .
They said we were cherry-picking data and hired a consultant , who came back with a bigger number than we did .
It 's never been mentioned since , and suddenly , three nines is considered nice-to-have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh...  Management not long ago was demanding five nines uptime for all critical systems, including external-facing websites (government agency communicating with the public).
We asked them if they meant in terms of planned or unplanned outages.
They said unplanned.
We told them it would be expensive.
They said to prove it.
We gave them a number.
They all but told us we were lying.
We showed them a case study.
They said we were cherry-picking data and hired a consultant, who came back with a bigger number than we did.
It's never been mentioned since, and suddenly, three nines is considered nice-to-have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215556</id>
	<title>Re:Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259085660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Redundant WAN links may help, but most likely you will have 2 downed circuits coming into the building when the local pedestal fills up with water.  If you don't want to spend the money to bring in disparate carriers from disparate PoPs through different cable paths, then you should look at a non-terrestrial option like satellite or 3g.  Both are inexpensive and provide adequate bandwidth to survive a circuit failure, assuming of course that you're not trying to back up a ds3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Redundant WAN links may help , but most likely you will have 2 downed circuits coming into the building when the local pedestal fills up with water .
If you do n't want to spend the money to bring in disparate carriers from disparate PoPs through different cable paths , then you should look at a non-terrestrial option like satellite or 3g .
Both are inexpensive and provide adequate bandwidth to survive a circuit failure , assuming of course that you 're not trying to back up a ds3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Redundant WAN links may help, but most likely you will have 2 downed circuits coming into the building when the local pedestal fills up with water.
If you don't want to spend the money to bring in disparate carriers from disparate PoPs through different cable paths, then you should look at a non-terrestrial option like satellite or 3g.
Both are inexpensive and provide adequate bandwidth to survive a circuit failure, assuming of course that you're not trying to back up a ds3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213718</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1259078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thank you for your suggestion that we spend more money.  We'll certainly take it under consideration."</p><p>--Later:</p><p>"File this somewhere where I'll be sure to never see it again, won't you, Miss Haversham?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thank you for your suggestion that we spend more money .
We 'll certainly take it under consideration .
" --Later : " File this somewhere where I 'll be sure to never see it again , wo n't you , Miss Haversham ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thank you for your suggestion that we spend more money.
We'll certainly take it under consideration.
"--Later:"File this somewhere where I'll be sure to never see it again, won't you, Miss Haversham?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213686</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1259078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.</p></div><p>It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.

</p><p>I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here.  Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether private or public , ineptitude as well as competence abounds.It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds .
I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here .
Going to the RMV ( our version of the DMV ) still sucks , but unless you 're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.
I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here.
Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1259072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix.</p></div><p>That's 27 weeks of downtime in the space of 26 weeks, which raises a much more important question than why there's no network redundancy and that question is: What kind of fucking morons have they got running their systems?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>During the first six months of the year , state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours : an average of more than 46 hours per outage .
One took 360 hours to fix.That 's 27 weeks of downtime in the space of 26 weeks , which raises a much more important question than why there 's no network redundancy and that question is : What kind of fucking morons have they got running their systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage.
One took 360 hours to fix.That's 27 weeks of downtime in the space of 26 weeks, which raises a much more important question than why there's no network redundancy and that question is: What kind of fucking morons have they got running their systems?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215312</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259084580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if you outsource, you shouldn't specify how it is done (redudancy etc.), but what you expect.</p><p>The problem is that most people don't understand what 99\% availibility implies (that you won't have your IT for 3.5 days each year !) and how these numbers accumulate, if multiple points of failure  exist.</p><p>And of course the compensation for not meeting the target numbers should equal the actual damage (paid overtime, etc.).</p><p>There are places where it is cheaper to risk a crash and there are parts of your network where redudancy is cheaper. But if you did your job on the outsourcing contract, this wouldn't bother you anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if you outsource , you should n't specify how it is done ( redudancy etc .
) , but what you expect.The problem is that most people do n't understand what 99 \ % availibility implies ( that you wo n't have your IT for 3.5 days each year !
) and how these numbers accumulate , if multiple points of failure exist.And of course the compensation for not meeting the target numbers should equal the actual damage ( paid overtime , etc .
) .There are places where it is cheaper to risk a crash and there are parts of your network where redudancy is cheaper .
But if you did your job on the outsourcing contract , this would n't bother you anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if you outsource, you shouldn't specify how it is done (redudancy etc.
), but what you expect.The problem is that most people don't understand what 99\% availibility implies (that you won't have your IT for 3.5 days each year !
) and how these numbers accumulate, if multiple points of failure  exist.And of course the compensation for not meeting the target numbers should equal the actual damage (paid overtime, etc.
).There are places where it is cheaper to risk a crash and there are parts of your network where redudancy is cheaper.
But if you did your job on the outsourcing contract, this wouldn't bother you anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</id>
	<title>Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259072580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology.  Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it is rare for a customer , even with professional IT staff , to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology .
Why did Northrop , which presumably has experience in government systems , not design backups ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology.
Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213470</id>
	<title>Sue Northrop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for every loss in productivity they are responsible for. This "mistake" is sheer incompetence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for every loss in productivity they are responsible for .
This " mistake " is sheer incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for every loss in productivity they are responsible for.
This "mistake" is sheer incompetence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215162</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>czmax</author>
	<datestamp>1259083980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device ; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214014</id>
	<title>Re:NG, I call you out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be a little biased, because I do work for a contractor to a government agency.</p><p>I agree with your point.  When people come directly to us, we can usually provide them a pretty straightforward answer, and within a couple of days things are usually done.  However, our policies dictate that we are not supposed to respond to such things, instead sending them to either management or to a project manager.  The head of project management has (I am told) said that her staff does not need any technical knowledge -- that is why we have engineers.  Either one will provide an answer that, while correct at some level, actually says nothing, but is interpreted by those who go to them as something useful.  Anything that requires a certain number of hours is then deemed to be a formal project, requiring assignment of a project manager and customer liaison (which is factored into the initial time, thereby frequently bumping up the hours to the magic number).  This is the simplest part of the revenue policies running around here and put in place by management, all of which are government employees.</p><p>When government is able to come up with mechanisms designed to increase billing hours that make consultants and contractors shy away from the evil, that says something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a little biased , because I do work for a contractor to a government agency.I agree with your point .
When people come directly to us , we can usually provide them a pretty straightforward answer , and within a couple of days things are usually done .
However , our policies dictate that we are not supposed to respond to such things , instead sending them to either management or to a project manager .
The head of project management has ( I am told ) said that her staff does not need any technical knowledge -- that is why we have engineers .
Either one will provide an answer that , while correct at some level , actually says nothing , but is interpreted by those who go to them as something useful .
Anything that requires a certain number of hours is then deemed to be a formal project , requiring assignment of a project manager and customer liaison ( which is factored into the initial time , thereby frequently bumping up the hours to the magic number ) .
This is the simplest part of the revenue policies running around here and put in place by management , all of which are government employees.When government is able to come up with mechanisms designed to increase billing hours that make consultants and contractors shy away from the evil , that says something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a little biased, because I do work for a contractor to a government agency.I agree with your point.
When people come directly to us, we can usually provide them a pretty straightforward answer, and within a couple of days things are usually done.
However, our policies dictate that we are not supposed to respond to such things, instead sending them to either management or to a project manager.
The head of project management has (I am told) said that her staff does not need any technical knowledge -- that is why we have engineers.
Either one will provide an answer that, while correct at some level, actually says nothing, but is interpreted by those who go to them as something useful.
Anything that requires a certain number of hours is then deemed to be a formal project, requiring assignment of a project manager and customer liaison (which is factored into the initial time, thereby frequently bumping up the hours to the magic number).
This is the simplest part of the revenue policies running around here and put in place by management, all of which are government employees.When government is able to come up with mechanisms designed to increase billing hours that make consultants and contractors shy away from the evil, that says something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212920</id>
	<title>Re:outsourcing</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1259073780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, it worked.  Mark Warner won two-thirds of the vote in his senate run last year based on his stellar performance as governor.  This was one of his big initiatives.</p><p>(He also *fixed* the revenue sources, so that there'd never be a problem like happened with Jim Gilmore.  Yet, now, Virginia is in worse shape than when he got there.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it worked .
Mark Warner won two-thirds of the vote in his senate run last year based on his stellar performance as governor .
This was one of his big initiatives .
( He also * fixed * the revenue sources , so that there 'd never be a problem like happened with Jim Gilmore .
Yet , now , Virginia is in worse shape than when he got there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it worked.
Mark Warner won two-thirds of the vote in his senate run last year based on his stellar performance as governor.
This was one of his big initiatives.
(He also *fixed* the revenue sources, so that there'd never be a problem like happened with Jim Gilmore.
Yet, now, Virginia is in worse shape than when he got there.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213320</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1259076060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?</p><p> <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240" title="slashdot.org">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!</p></div><p>Yeah, right. Because the private sector has done <b>such</b> a good job of protecting our privacy, banking info, etc.<br>
Please..., go troll somewhere else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how Virginia 's health records were compromised earlier this year ?
http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/05/05/1232240 [ slashdot.org ] Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I 'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care ! Yeah , right .
Because the private sector has done such a good job of protecting our privacy , banking info , etc .
Please... , go troll somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240 [slashdot.org] Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!Yeah, right.
Because the private sector has done such a good job of protecting our privacy, banking info, etc.
Please..., go troll somewhere else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213432</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1259076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so it would've made sense for them to do the following:</p><p>* Deliver a offer for the system requested.<br>* Get the deal signed<br>* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?</p> </div><p>Who's to say they didn't?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>My guess is the disconnect happened in between steps 1 and 2, more precisely when the bean counter saw the price in the offer and mentally could not attach that to any value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so it would 've made sense for them to do the following : * Deliver a offer for the system requested .
* Get the deal signed * Say : We notice you 've not specified any backup , do you want that additionally ?
Who 's to say they did n't ?
; ) My guess is the disconnect happened in between steps 1 and 2 , more precisely when the bean counter saw the price in the offer and mentally could not attach that to any value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it would've made sense for them to do the following:* Deliver a offer for the system requested.
* Get the deal signed* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?
Who's to say they didn't?
;)My guess is the disconnect happened in between steps 1 and 2, more precisely when the bean counter saw the price in the offer and mentally could not attach that to any value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215960</id>
	<title>Businesses and backups...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259087520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I arrived at a private sector job where they thought they had backups for the past four years. They were just switching an 80 GB tapes every day on the Windows 2k3 servers without running a backup program, had 'floppy-punched' tapes into being accepted as DDS-4 tapes, and had tar backups conking out at 2 GBs because of filesystem limitations of SCO OpenServer which didn't sync properly with the pirate backup server anyway as it had run out of space eons ago and there was no cleanup schedule. Also the RAID card's battery to hold config data was toast (one power loss away from losing everything) and a disk had failed in the array anyway.</p><p>As for security, there was a dial up line to the system. No password required to get in and full-access to the system was nothing but a Ctrl-C away.  Locally, there was also unprotected wi-fi to the network.</p><p>The system held lots of private, government and research data. If it was publicly compromised the business would have lost out on many a contract in the future. Did they care about any of this? Not really. Bottom line was all that mattered. So the story isn't too surprising. Businesses don't care about their own systems, let alone the systems of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I arrived at a private sector job where they thought they had backups for the past four years .
They were just switching an 80 GB tapes every day on the Windows 2k3 servers without running a backup program , had 'floppy-punched ' tapes into being accepted as DDS-4 tapes , and had tar backups conking out at 2 GBs because of filesystem limitations of SCO OpenServer which did n't sync properly with the pirate backup server anyway as it had run out of space eons ago and there was no cleanup schedule .
Also the RAID card 's battery to hold config data was toast ( one power loss away from losing everything ) and a disk had failed in the array anyway.As for security , there was a dial up line to the system .
No password required to get in and full-access to the system was nothing but a Ctrl-C away .
Locally , there was also unprotected wi-fi to the network.The system held lots of private , government and research data .
If it was publicly compromised the business would have lost out on many a contract in the future .
Did they care about any of this ?
Not really .
Bottom line was all that mattered .
So the story is n't too surprising .
Businesses do n't care about their own systems , let alone the systems of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I arrived at a private sector job where they thought they had backups for the past four years.
They were just switching an 80 GB tapes every day on the Windows 2k3 servers without running a backup program, had 'floppy-punched' tapes into being accepted as DDS-4 tapes, and had tar backups conking out at 2 GBs because of filesystem limitations of SCO OpenServer which didn't sync properly with the pirate backup server anyway as it had run out of space eons ago and there was no cleanup schedule.
Also the RAID card's battery to hold config data was toast (one power loss away from losing everything) and a disk had failed in the array anyway.As for security, there was a dial up line to the system.
No password required to get in and full-access to the system was nothing but a Ctrl-C away.
Locally, there was also unprotected wi-fi to the network.The system held lots of private, government and research data.
If it was publicly compromised the business would have lost out on many a contract in the future.
Did they care about any of this?
Not really.
Bottom line was all that mattered.
So the story isn't too surprising.
Businesses don't care about their own systems, let alone the systems of others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213948</id>
	<title>Re:Network connections, not system backups...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259079360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/Backup/Redundancy/ and half the comments go away - vague headlines must be Slashdot's new evil plan to get page views.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/Backup/Redundancy/ and half the comments go away - vague headlines must be Slashdot 's new evil plan to get page views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/Backup/Redundancy/ and half the comments go away - vague headlines must be Slashdot's new evil plan to get page views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110</id>
	<title>Network connections, not system backups...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is seems nobody RTFA (no surprise). The problem they're having is network outages at branch offices. I assume they're using DSL or such, with no way to connect if/when it goes down. Any one office probably has &gt;99\% up time, but when you have hundreds of offices and the remnants of a hurricane come through you can expect several of them to go offline, which is what's happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is seems nobody RTFA ( no surprise ) .
The problem they 're having is network outages at branch offices .
I assume they 're using DSL or such , with no way to connect if/when it goes down .
Any one office probably has &gt; 99 \ % up time , but when you have hundreds of offices and the remnants of a hurricane come through you can expect several of them to go offline , which is what 's happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is seems nobody RTFA (no surprise).
The problem they're having is network outages at branch offices.
I assume they're using DSL or such, with no way to connect if/when it goes down.
Any one office probably has &gt;99\% up time, but when you have hundreds of offices and the remnants of a hurricane come through you can expect several of them to go offline, which is what's happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217078</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259092800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.</p></div><p>Have you ever seen a holodeck episode? The future has crappy IT. The Vulcans must have stolen their ships from go'uld*, since nobody knows how to do anything nerdier than paint or play jazz music.</p><p>(And yes, I am cross-referencing different series.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek , for example ?
you have n't .
The future requires no backups.Have you ever seen a holodeck episode ?
The future has crappy IT .
The Vulcans must have stolen their ships from go'uld * , since nobody knows how to do anything nerdier than paint or play jazz music .
( And yes , I am cross-referencing different series .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example?
you haven't.
The future requires no backups.Have you ever seen a holodeck episode?
The future has crappy IT.
The Vulcans must have stolen their ships from go'uld*, since nobody knows how to do anything nerdier than paint or play jazz music.
(And yes, I am cross-referencing different series.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all. This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one. I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.
<br> <br>
The companies where I've seen this basically do a risk assessment and say "well, we are willing to accept the risk of downtime because BCP is too costly". Unfortunately they don't weigh the chance of an outage or disaster appropriately, and then find themselves severely screwed when a tornado, storm system, or fire occurs, and then they are either out of business (in a small company) or take enough of a hit to make a headline on Slashdot and cripple the business.
<br> <br>
Seriously, when are companies going to realize that this is a critical component of IT? I've felt like I've talked till I was blue in the face about this over the years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not just backups , it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all .
This is a massive oversight , but a fairly common one .
I 've consulted for a number of years , and it 's amazing at how many companies do n't have a BCP plan at all , and sometimes it includes simple backups of data .
The companies where I 've seen this basically do a risk assessment and say " well , we are willing to accept the risk of downtime because BCP is too costly " .
Unfortunately they do n't weigh the chance of an outage or disaster appropriately , and then find themselves severely screwed when a tornado , storm system , or fire occurs , and then they are either out of business ( in a small company ) or take enough of a hit to make a headline on Slashdot and cripple the business .
Seriously , when are companies going to realize that this is a critical component of IT ?
I 've felt like I 've talked till I was blue in the face about this over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all.
This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one.
I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.
The companies where I've seen this basically do a risk assessment and say "well, we are willing to accept the risk of downtime because BCP is too costly".
Unfortunately they don't weigh the chance of an outage or disaster appropriately, and then find themselves severely screwed when a tornado, storm system, or fire occurs, and then they are either out of business (in a small company) or take enough of a hit to make a headline on Slashdot and cripple the business.
Seriously, when are companies going to realize that this is a critical component of IT?
I've felt like I've talked till I was blue in the face about this over the years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</id>
	<title>Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article does not mention "backups" as in tape drives and off-site storage.</p><p>The article does mention lack of redundancy at the network carrier level.</p><p>My guess is that Northrop Grumman designed a network around single circuits connecting offices to data centers, and did not design the network to tolerate WAN link failures.</p><p>A stupid oversight for sure, but nothing that can't be easily remedied by ordering redundant WAN circuits from your telco of choice.  Redundant routing gear would also be smart.</p><p>For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company.  That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation.  Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does not mention " backups " as in tape drives and off-site storage.The article does mention lack of redundancy at the network carrier level.My guess is that Northrop Grumman designed a network around single circuits connecting offices to data centers , and did not design the network to tolerate WAN link failures.A stupid oversight for sure , but nothing that ca n't be easily remedied by ordering redundant WAN circuits from your telco of choice .
Redundant routing gear would also be smart.For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company .
That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation .
Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article does not mention "backups" as in tape drives and off-site storage.The article does mention lack of redundancy at the network carrier level.My guess is that Northrop Grumman designed a network around single circuits connecting offices to data centers, and did not design the network to tolerate WAN link failures.A stupid oversight for sure, but nothing that can't be easily remedied by ordering redundant WAN circuits from your telco of choice.
Redundant routing gear would also be smart.For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company.
That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation.
Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213146</id>
	<title>Backups are worthless, restores are priceless...</title>
	<author>adamsteinhoff</author>
	<datestamp>1259074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been in the business of running networks for many years. I generally find that, as the company gets smaller, the amount of redundancy and unknown problems goes up. I expect every small business that I walk into to have no redundancy and backup systems that work 10\% of the time. However, the fact that someone as large as NG and the government overlooked this critical part of system design is amazing to me.</p><p>I always explain to my small business clients that 'backups are worthless, restores are priceless.' It generally takes a few seconds to set in before the questions or statements start coming. "But, I have a backup scheduled every night. I take the tapes offsite every Friday."</p><p>It's always an eye-opener when I show them the console on their server with lots of red errors indicating that the data on the tapes are incomplete at best. Then, I start talking about the fact that if their server were to die, not only would it take a day or so to get parts for that old thing, but that the likelihood of being able to get it running at 100\% again is slim or very costly at best.</p><p>Even small businesses will invest in a backup/business continuity device after hearing that and reading our blog that contains 'my company saved the day for a client yesterday'.</p><p>Shameless plug: <a href="http://www.dedicatedit.com/blog/day-life/backups-are-worthless-restores-are-priceless" title="dedicatedit.com" rel="nofollow">Backups are worthless, restores are priceless</a> [dedicatedit.com] blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been in the business of running networks for many years .
I generally find that , as the company gets smaller , the amount of redundancy and unknown problems goes up .
I expect every small business that I walk into to have no redundancy and backup systems that work 10 \ % of the time .
However , the fact that someone as large as NG and the government overlooked this critical part of system design is amazing to me.I always explain to my small business clients that 'backups are worthless , restores are priceless .
' It generally takes a few seconds to set in before the questions or statements start coming .
" But , I have a backup scheduled every night .
I take the tapes offsite every Friday .
" It 's always an eye-opener when I show them the console on their server with lots of red errors indicating that the data on the tapes are incomplete at best .
Then , I start talking about the fact that if their server were to die , not only would it take a day or so to get parts for that old thing , but that the likelihood of being able to get it running at 100 \ % again is slim or very costly at best.Even small businesses will invest in a backup/business continuity device after hearing that and reading our blog that contains 'my company saved the day for a client yesterday'.Shameless plug : Backups are worthless , restores are priceless [ dedicatedit.com ] blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been in the business of running networks for many years.
I generally find that, as the company gets smaller, the amount of redundancy and unknown problems goes up.
I expect every small business that I walk into to have no redundancy and backup systems that work 10\% of the time.
However, the fact that someone as large as NG and the government overlooked this critical part of system design is amazing to me.I always explain to my small business clients that 'backups are worthless, restores are priceless.
' It generally takes a few seconds to set in before the questions or statements start coming.
"But, I have a backup scheduled every night.
I take the tapes offsite every Friday.
"It's always an eye-opener when I show them the console on their server with lots of red errors indicating that the data on the tapes are incomplete at best.
Then, I start talking about the fact that if their server were to die, not only would it take a day or so to get parts for that old thing, but that the likelihood of being able to get it running at 100\% again is slim or very costly at best.Even small businesses will invest in a backup/business continuity device after hearing that and reading our blog that contains 'my company saved the day for a client yesterday'.Shameless plug: Backups are worthless, restores are priceless [dedicatedit.com] blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213236</id>
	<title>Epic Fail</title>
	<author>halfEvilTech</author>
	<datestamp>1259075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If any story deserves this tag it is this. from the article:</p><p>"Virginia declared a state of emergency Nov. 11 in the face of record nor'easter rains and winds.</p><p>But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event.</p><p>"We called at 5:35 in the morning," said Gary Allen, VDOT's chief of technology, research and innovation.</p><p>"It took VITA four hours to open the help ticket" and begin to solve the problem."</p><p>4 hrs on a critical system seriously just to get started solving it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If any story deserves this tag it is this .
from the article : " Virginia declared a state of emergency Nov. 11 in the face of record nor'easter rains and winds.But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load , the transportation agency 's Hampton Roads ' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event .
" We called at 5 : 35 in the morning , " said Gary Allen , VDOT 's chief of technology , research and innovation .
" It took VITA four hours to open the help ticket " and begin to solve the problem .
" 4 hrs on a critical system seriously just to get started solving it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any story deserves this tag it is this.
from the article:"Virginia declared a state of emergency Nov. 11 in the face of record nor'easter rains and winds.But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event.
"We called at 5:35 in the morning," said Gary Allen, VDOT's chief of technology, research and innovation.
"It took VITA four hours to open the help ticket" and begin to solve the problem.
"4 hrs on a critical system seriously just to get started solving it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214056</id>
	<title>Job opening in Virginia</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1259079840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the site is down, so you can't apply.
<br> <br>

(I'm trying to start a new meme, here)</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the site is down , so you ca n't apply .
( I 'm trying to start a new meme , here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the site is down, so you can't apply.
(I'm trying to start a new meme, here)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213080</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1259074680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology. Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?</p></div><p>Consultants never seem to get it right. Granted, the situations I'm familiar with are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of this contract but at that scale the issue is that the contractors and consultants are juggling multiple clients so the needs of any one must be balanced against the needs of all of them. But what really burns me is when they can't even provide decent advice on what should be bread and butter. "We need a backup solution." See, there you go. Many solutions on the market but they should be able to settle on a package they can confidently advise clients will work. But they don't. This astounds me. The consultants are just shooting in the dark, no better informed than the rest of us. You can't blame them for good advice ignored by the customer but for bad advice or no advice at all? Absolutely!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it is rare for a customer , even with professional IT staff , to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology .
Why did Northrop , which presumably has experience in government systems , not design backups ? Consultants never seem to get it right .
Granted , the situations I 'm familiar with are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of this contract but at that scale the issue is that the contractors and consultants are juggling multiple clients so the needs of any one must be balanced against the needs of all of them .
But what really burns me is when they ca n't even provide decent advice on what should be bread and butter .
" We need a backup solution .
" See , there you go .
Many solutions on the market but they should be able to settle on a package they can confidently advise clients will work .
But they do n't .
This astounds me .
The consultants are just shooting in the dark , no better informed than the rest of us .
You ca n't blame them for good advice ignored by the customer but for bad advice or no advice at all ?
Absolutely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology.
Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?Consultants never seem to get it right.
Granted, the situations I'm familiar with are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of this contract but at that scale the issue is that the contractors and consultants are juggling multiple clients so the needs of any one must be balanced against the needs of all of them.
But what really burns me is when they can't even provide decent advice on what should be bread and butter.
"We need a backup solution.
" See, there you go.
Many solutions on the market but they should be able to settle on a package they can confidently advise clients will work.
But they don't.
This astounds me.
The consultants are just shooting in the dark, no better informed than the rest of us.
You can't blame them for good advice ignored by the customer but for bad advice or no advice at all?
Absolutely!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214584</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1259081820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.</p></div><p>That sounds about right, expecially after reading this quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>George F. Coulter took over as the state's chief information officer in August.<br>
"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.<br>
"Why that wasn't put into the network, I don't know," Coulter said. "This is a service we have to have."</p></div><p>My guess is that the VA employees overseeing the bidding and proposal writeup did not understand the importance.  They probably wanted somewhere to cut costs, saw the word 'redundant', and thought that would be a good place to save money.  Without someone technical with enough weight to tell the higher-ups that this is a necessity, some manager will decide to kill that part of the proposal, thinking they saved the state millions.  Presuming the last CIO and his team didn't know what they were doing (likely because the person who appointed them didn't know how to tell), this seems believeable to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As another poster mentioned , though , it 's quite likely that NG came back and said here 's a system that will do that , and it will cost X , and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA .
I 'm in that business , and this happens all the time.That sounds about right , expecially after reading this quote : George F. Coulter took over as the state 's chief information officer in August .
" The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out did n't have redundancy , backup , " Coulter said yesterday .
" The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network .
" Why that was n't put into the network , I do n't know , " Coulter said .
" This is a service we have to have .
" My guess is that the VA employees overseeing the bidding and proposal writeup did not understand the importance .
They probably wanted somewhere to cut costs , saw the word 'redundant ' , and thought that would be a good place to save money .
Without someone technical with enough weight to tell the higher-ups that this is a necessity , some manager will decide to kill that part of the proposal , thinking they saved the state millions .
Presuming the last CIO and his team did n't know what they were doing ( likely because the person who appointed them did n't know how to tell ) , this seems believeable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA.
I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.That sounds about right, expecially after reading this quote:George F. Coulter took over as the state's chief information officer in August.
"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday.
"The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network.
"Why that wasn't put into the network, I don't know," Coulter said.
"This is a service we have to have.
"My guess is that the VA employees overseeing the bidding and proposal writeup did not understand the importance.
They probably wanted somewhere to cut costs, saw the word 'redundant', and thought that would be a good place to save money.
Without someone technical with enough weight to tell the higher-ups that this is a necessity, some manager will decide to kill that part of the proposal, thinking they saved the state millions.
Presuming the last CIO and his team didn't know what they were doing (likely because the person who appointed them didn't know how to tell), this seems believeable to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213048</id>
	<title>sorry, dont mean to troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how stupid can these people be to not include backups? i dont see this as a matter of improperly specifying their needs. I see this as a matter of stupidity. thats all.</p><p>again, sorry for the troll post, but this is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how stupid can these people be to not include backups ?
i dont see this as a matter of improperly specifying their needs .
I see this as a matter of stupidity .
thats all.again , sorry for the troll post , but this is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how stupid can these people be to not include backups?
i dont see this as a matter of improperly specifying their needs.
I see this as a matter of stupidity.
thats all.again, sorry for the troll post, but this is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216342</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>jcnnghm</author>
	<datestamp>1259089320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world of uninformed slashdotters.  This contract was likely best value, not low-bid.  Low-bid procurements are pretty rare, especially for something like this.  It's not the contractors job to overbid the contract to provide services the government decided it didn't need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of uninformed slashdotters .
This contract was likely best value , not low-bid .
Low-bid procurements are pretty rare , especially for something like this .
It 's not the contractors job to overbid the contract to provide services the government decided it did n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of uninformed slashdotters.
This contract was likely best value, not low-bid.
Low-bid procurements are pretty rare, especially for something like this.
It's not the contractors job to overbid the contract to provide services the government decided it didn't need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215148</id>
	<title>Re:Funny math or multiple systems?</title>
	<author>Tino</author>
	<datestamp>1259083980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4,677 hours of failure in 4,344 hours of time means that at any given time, an average of 1.07 locations were offline.</p><p>There are 131 DMV offices in Virignia; I don't know how many other Department of Transportation locations are included in the same bucket.  If we assume that it's *only* the 131 DMV offices, 1.07 failures at any given time means that the system means that 130.3 locations are working, meaning that this statewide patchwork of network connections is 99.45\% reliable.</p><p>If your 'redundant' connections cut the failures in half (which they wouldn't), you'd have 99.59\% reliability at more than twice the cost for the network.</p><p>Adding 'redundancy' would more than double the network cost (since presumably currently they're using the lowest bidder), and in most places it wouldn't add any real redundancy anyway.   Getting actual network redundancy is *fiendishly* difficult, even when you're spending a lot of money and siting a facility in a place that's well-served for networking.  In small-town Virginia, you're almost certainly going to wind up paying for having redundant wires hanging on the same poles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4,677 hours of failure in 4,344 hours of time means that at any given time , an average of 1.07 locations were offline.There are 131 DMV offices in Virignia ; I do n't know how many other Department of Transportation locations are included in the same bucket .
If we assume that it 's * only * the 131 DMV offices , 1.07 failures at any given time means that the system means that 130.3 locations are working , meaning that this statewide patchwork of network connections is 99.45 \ % reliable.If your 'redundant ' connections cut the failures in half ( which they would n't ) , you 'd have 99.59 \ % reliability at more than twice the cost for the network.Adding 'redundancy ' would more than double the network cost ( since presumably currently they 're using the lowest bidder ) , and in most places it would n't add any real redundancy anyway .
Getting actual network redundancy is * fiendishly * difficult , even when you 're spending a lot of money and siting a facility in a place that 's well-served for networking .
In small-town Virginia , you 're almost certainly going to wind up paying for having redundant wires hanging on the same poles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4,677 hours of failure in 4,344 hours of time means that at any given time, an average of 1.07 locations were offline.There are 131 DMV offices in Virignia; I don't know how many other Department of Transportation locations are included in the same bucket.
If we assume that it's *only* the 131 DMV offices, 1.07 failures at any given time means that the system means that 130.3 locations are working, meaning that this statewide patchwork of network connections is 99.45\% reliable.If your 'redundant' connections cut the failures in half (which they wouldn't), you'd have 99.59\% reliability at more than twice the cost for the network.Adding 'redundancy' would more than double the network cost (since presumably currently they're using the lowest bidder), and in most places it wouldn't add any real redundancy anyway.
Getting actual network redundancy is *fiendishly* difficult, even when you're spending a lot of money and siting a facility in a place that's well-served for networking.
In small-town Virginia, you're almost certainly going to wind up paying for having redundant wires hanging on the same poles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213366</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why we should outsource our healthcare and our IT to the private sector!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why we should outsource our healthcare and our IT to the private sector !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why we should outsource our healthcare and our IT to the private sector!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212878</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?Christmas gifts,shoes,handbags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259073480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]
Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33,Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35,Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16,free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33,Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35,Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35,Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16,free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]
Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33,Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35,Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16,free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214596</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Fallon</author>
	<datestamp>1259081880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably because the contract that the state gave NG didn't specify any kind of redundant networks. If a contract specifies XYZ, you have to provide XYZ, not XYZ + a redundant network. And before you start screaming about why NG should provide redundant networks anyway, contracts like that specify to some degree what money should be spent on, and you can't steal money from other parts of the contract to provide something that isn't contractually obligated.<br><br>Oh, and the guy that was the CIO overseeing this project for 4 years is now Obama's technology guy...<br><br>Disclaimer: I'm currently a Northrop Grumman employee for about another month, until they finish selling off my division (TASC).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because the contract that the state gave NG did n't specify any kind of redundant networks .
If a contract specifies XYZ , you have to provide XYZ , not XYZ + a redundant network .
And before you start screaming about why NG should provide redundant networks anyway , contracts like that specify to some degree what money should be spent on , and you ca n't steal money from other parts of the contract to provide something that is n't contractually obligated.Oh , and the guy that was the CIO overseeing this project for 4 years is now Obama 's technology guy...Disclaimer : I 'm currently a Northrop Grumman employee for about another month , until they finish selling off my division ( TASC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because the contract that the state gave NG didn't specify any kind of redundant networks.
If a contract specifies XYZ, you have to provide XYZ, not XYZ + a redundant network.
And before you start screaming about why NG should provide redundant networks anyway, contracts like that specify to some degree what money should be spent on, and you can't steal money from other parts of the contract to provide something that isn't contractually obligated.Oh, and the guy that was the CIO overseeing this project for 4 years is now Obama's technology guy...Disclaimer: I'm currently a Northrop Grumman employee for about another month, until they finish selling off my division (TASC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213780</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>magarity</author>
	<datestamp>1259078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article is seems that NG installed and ran the system for a while but only after the state people took over did it experience a lot of problems.  I'm curious what is causing these outages before I'll blame either NG for not installing backups or the state for not budgeting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article is seems that NG installed and ran the system for a while but only after the state people took over did it experience a lot of problems .
I 'm curious what is causing these outages before I 'll blame either NG for not installing backups or the state for not budgeting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article is seems that NG installed and ran the system for a while but only after the state people took over did it experience a lot of problems.
I'm curious what is causing these outages before I'll blame either NG for not installing backups or the state for not budgeting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212756</id>
	<title>NG, I call you out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most forget that the network provided by the NG crooks is NOT part of the Comprehensive Infrastructure Agreement (CIA).  It is a seperate agreement that is a fixed cost agreement under which NG was supposed to replace &ldquo;like for like&rdquo;.  They were supposed to install an MPLS network.  MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) allows for the prioritization of traffic to allow Voice traffic to travel over the same circuit as the data.  It also supposed to be intelligent enough to encrypt data to essentially allow a VPN to be created from point-to-point.</p><p>None of the VPN has been done as promised, very few sites have used the VOIP option unless dictated to by VITA as part of new construction and most sites complain about network performance.  Some agencies had totally redundant networks but were forced to pay more for less.  65\% of VITA staff make over 90,000 a year.  Again we pay more for less.</p><p>While I am not a NG fan,  interestingly enough, most state managers at Agencies will tell you that working directly with NG allows things to get done, VITA just gets in the way.  VITA wants to always be the interface, Waste Fraud and Abuse to pay high salaries for mostly unqualified folks. Throw out VITA and let the agencies be treated like customers by NG.</p><p>The IT Community Frowns Upon Your Shenanigans...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most forget that the network provided by the NG crooks is NOT part of the Comprehensive Infrastructure Agreement ( CIA ) .
It is a seperate agreement that is a fixed cost agreement under which NG was supposed to replace    like for like    .
They were supposed to install an MPLS network .
MPLS ( Multi Protocol Label Switching ) allows for the prioritization of traffic to allow Voice traffic to travel over the same circuit as the data .
It also supposed to be intelligent enough to encrypt data to essentially allow a VPN to be created from point-to-point.None of the VPN has been done as promised , very few sites have used the VOIP option unless dictated to by VITA as part of new construction and most sites complain about network performance .
Some agencies had totally redundant networks but were forced to pay more for less .
65 \ % of VITA staff make over 90,000 a year .
Again we pay more for less.While I am not a NG fan , interestingly enough , most state managers at Agencies will tell you that working directly with NG allows things to get done , VITA just gets in the way .
VITA wants to always be the interface , Waste Fraud and Abuse to pay high salaries for mostly unqualified folks .
Throw out VITA and let the agencies be treated like customers by NG.The IT Community Frowns Upon Your Shenanigans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most forget that the network provided by the NG crooks is NOT part of the Comprehensive Infrastructure Agreement (CIA).
It is a seperate agreement that is a fixed cost agreement under which NG was supposed to replace “like for like”.
They were supposed to install an MPLS network.
MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) allows for the prioritization of traffic to allow Voice traffic to travel over the same circuit as the data.
It also supposed to be intelligent enough to encrypt data to essentially allow a VPN to be created from point-to-point.None of the VPN has been done as promised, very few sites have used the VOIP option unless dictated to by VITA as part of new construction and most sites complain about network performance.
Some agencies had totally redundant networks but were forced to pay more for less.
65\% of VITA staff make over 90,000 a year.
Again we pay more for less.While I am not a NG fan,  interestingly enough, most state managers at Agencies will tell you that working directly with NG allows things to get done, VITA just gets in the way.
VITA wants to always be the interface, Waste Fraud and Abuse to pay high salaries for mostly unqualified folks.
Throw out VITA and let the agencies be treated like customers by NG.The IT Community Frowns Upon Your Shenanigans...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214176</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259080380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think anything in the health care industry is party of a legitimate free market you really need to go back and study the concept of a free market again. Aside from that, at least with a private vendor they can be sued and fired. When a government entity falls into such problems they always claim reform and it only happens about 5\% of the time. There really is no way for anyone to weed out government foolery no matter how inept they are.<br> <br>Think about it. When is the last time we've really had a governmental department scraped and rebuilt without the same people who fouled it up at the helm?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think anything in the health care industry is party of a legitimate free market you really need to go back and study the concept of a free market again .
Aside from that , at least with a private vendor they can be sued and fired .
When a government entity falls into such problems they always claim reform and it only happens about 5 \ % of the time .
There really is no way for anyone to weed out government foolery no matter how inept they are .
Think about it .
When is the last time we 've really had a governmental department scraped and rebuilt without the same people who fouled it up at the helm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think anything in the health care industry is party of a legitimate free market you really need to go back and study the concept of a free market again.
Aside from that, at least with a private vendor they can be sued and fired.
When a government entity falls into such problems they always claim reform and it only happens about 5\% of the time.
There really is no way for anyone to weed out government foolery no matter how inept they are.
Think about it.
When is the last time we've really had a governmental department scraped and rebuilt without the same people who fouled it up at the helm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212890</id>
	<title>Re:Easy</title>
	<author>kiehlster</author>
	<datestamp>1259073600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Running' is not the optimal term here.  I'd say they have monkeys defecating on their systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Running ' is not the optimal term here .
I 'd say they have monkeys defecating on their systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Running' is not the optimal term here.
I'd say they have monkeys defecating on their systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218392</id>
	<title>Contract and big checks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Response is simple. Companies get a big check from government to design/install something then another to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Response is simple .
Companies get a big check from government to design/install something then another to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Response is simple.
Companies get a big check from government to design/install something then another to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213244</id>
	<title>Funny math or multiple systems?</title>
	<author>Cprossu</author>
	<datestamp>1259075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix."</p><p>wait, 4,677 hours? how could that be? There were 181 days in the first 6 months of this year, that's only 4,344 hours.. there was more downtime on the system than days in it's operational life! (did someone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/0 here?)</p><p>Outsourced, no thanks... I think I'd rather dig up a Univac I to do work on, at least it would be more reliable</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" During the first six months of the year , state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours : an average of more than 46 hours per outage .
One took 360 hours to fix .
" wait , 4,677 hours ?
how could that be ?
There were 181 days in the first 6 months of this year , that 's only 4,344 hours.. there was more downtime on the system than days in it 's operational life !
( did someone /0 here ?
) Outsourced , no thanks... I think I 'd rather dig up a Univac I to do work on , at least it would be more reliable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage.
One took 360 hours to fix.
"wait, 4,677 hours?
how could that be?
There were 181 days in the first 6 months of this year, that's only 4,344 hours.. there was more downtime on the system than days in it's operational life!
(did someone /0 here?
)Outsourced, no thanks... I think I'd rather dig up a Univac I to do work on, at least it would be more reliable</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220160</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Northrop: Well everyone always does. Server 'em up, boys!<br>
[Ronald's lackeys outfit the state.]<br>
Virginia: Hey, what the hell's going on!<br>
Northrop: Oh, we didn't get rich by wiring a lot of servers! [
           laughter]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Northrop : Well everyone always does .
Server 'em up , boys !
[ Ronald 's lackeys outfit the state .
] Virginia : Hey , what the hell 's going on !
Northrop : Oh , we did n't get rich by wiring a lot of servers !
[ laughter ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Northrop: Well everyone always does.
Server 'em up, boys!
[Ronald's lackeys outfit the state.
]
Virginia: Hey, what the hell's going on!
Northrop: Oh, we didn't get rich by wiring a lot of servers!
[
           laughter]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=55456&amp;cid=7" title="itbusiness.ca">Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.</a> [itbusiness.ca] Government involvement doesn't mean ineptitude, and the free market doesn't gurantee competence. Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bureaucracy is bureaucracy .
[ itbusiness.ca ] Government involvement does n't mean ineptitude , and the free market does n't gurantee competence .
Whether private or public , ineptitude as well as competence abounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.
[itbusiness.ca] Government involvement doesn't mean ineptitude, and the free market doesn't gurantee competence.
Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215566</id>
	<title>That's what the "auxiliary X" is</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1259085660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they talk about auxiliary power/thrusters/life-support whatever, that's the secondary/backup system. Except it's generally not a full-scale-system, but more of a scaled-down system meant to get by until the main system is repaired/replaced.</p><p>I'm more concerned about the lack of bathrooms though. I'm not sure I'd want to be on a Starship if the crew are all wearing some futuristic version of Depends...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they talk about auxiliary power/thrusters/life-support whatever , that 's the secondary/backup system .
Except it 's generally not a full-scale-system , but more of a scaled-down system meant to get by until the main system is repaired/replaced.I 'm more concerned about the lack of bathrooms though .
I 'm not sure I 'd want to be on a Starship if the crew are all wearing some futuristic version of Depends.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they talk about auxiliary power/thrusters/life-support whatever, that's the secondary/backup system.
Except it's generally not a full-scale-system, but more of a scaled-down system meant to get by until the main system is repaired/replaced.I'm more concerned about the lack of bathrooms though.
I'm not sure I'd want to be on a Starship if the crew are all wearing some futuristic version of Depends...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213130</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1259074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world of government low-bid contracts.  The specification didn't call for backups, so you don't get backups, because that would've made the bid higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of government low-bid contracts .
The specification did n't call for backups , so you do n't get backups , because that would 've made the bid higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of government low-bid contracts.
The specification didn't call for backups, so you don't get backups, because that would've made the bid higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213848</id>
	<title>And I thought....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... getting a drivers license in Texas was bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... getting a drivers license in Texas was bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... getting a drivers license in Texas was bad!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213702</id>
	<title>More bias from the Richmond Time Dispatch</title>
	<author>Casharelle</author>
	<datestamp>1259078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Richmond Times Dispatch really seems to hate the Northrop Grumman / VITA project. Actually, from my experience a lot of folks down in Richmond hate it and tend to bad mouth it endlessly.<p>

There is a lot of bad sentiment here in VA as this consolidation/outsourcing of IT cost quite a few State jobs which obviously upset a lot of people. Of course, they forget the fact that Northrop Grumman is one of the State's biggest employers and that they were hiring people to work at the new location. I still hear of lot of anger on radio stations and in the news when I'm in that region.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Richmond Times Dispatch really seems to hate the Northrop Grumman / VITA project .
Actually , from my experience a lot of folks down in Richmond hate it and tend to bad mouth it endlessly .
There is a lot of bad sentiment here in VA as this consolidation/outsourcing of IT cost quite a few State jobs which obviously upset a lot of people .
Of course , they forget the fact that Northrop Grumman is one of the State 's biggest employers and that they were hiring people to work at the new location .
I still hear of lot of anger on radio stations and in the news when I 'm in that region .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Richmond Times Dispatch really seems to hate the Northrop Grumman / VITA project.
Actually, from my experience a lot of folks down in Richmond hate it and tend to bad mouth it endlessly.
There is a lot of bad sentiment here in VA as this consolidation/outsourcing of IT cost quite a few State jobs which obviously upset a lot of people.
Of course, they forget the fact that Northrop Grumman is one of the State's biggest employers and that they were hiring people to work at the new location.
I still hear of lot of anger on radio stations and in the news when I'm in that region.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213220</id>
	<title>Re:outsourcing</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1259075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government is clearly involved here. So it's got nothing to do with free enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is clearly involved here .
So it 's got nothing to do with free enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is clearly involved here.
So it's got nothing to do with free enterprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216088</id>
	<title>Ron Paul</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1259088180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like Big Government screwed up again, should have gone with the private sector!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Big Government screwed up again , should have gone with the private sector !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Big Government screwed up again, should have gone with the private sector!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213144</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>angus\_rg</author>
	<datestamp>1259074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask and it shall be given, for an extra 10 mil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask and it shall be given , for an extra 10 mil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask and it shall be given, for an extra 10 mil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214090</id>
	<title>Re:Network connections, not system backups...</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1259079960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; with no way to connect if/when it goes down.</p><p>Ironically the Internet was supposed to solve that problem.  Maybe they simply need multiple Internet connections from different providers and across different mediums: microwave, satellite, dial-up (yuck), pigeon.  Expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; with no way to connect if/when it goes down.Ironically the Internet was supposed to solve that problem .
Maybe they simply need multiple Internet connections from different providers and across different mediums : microwave , satellite , dial-up ( yuck ) , pigeon .
Expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; with no way to connect if/when it goes down.Ironically the Internet was supposed to solve that problem.
Maybe they simply need multiple Internet connections from different providers and across different mediums: microwave, satellite, dial-up (yuck), pigeon.
Expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214068</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259079840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it does. What the heck is all the talk about auxiliary and emergency power?</p><p>Of course, the real limitation is that any redundant control systems make the operator's console twice as likely to explode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it does .
What the heck is all the talk about auxiliary and emergency power ? Of course , the real limitation is that any redundant control systems make the operator 's console twice as likely to explode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it does.
What the heck is all the talk about auxiliary and emergency power?Of course, the real limitation is that any redundant control systems make the operator's console twice as likely to explode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212824</id>
	<title>Sometimes upper management rips reqs from RFQs</title>
	<author>chrispix</author>
	<datestamp>1259073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Working for a local government, it does not matter what the IT department recommends or requires in a project. Sometimes upper management just don't get it, and cut things out of projects to save a buck. One example I can think of was hand holds. At a few hundred dollars a pop, we wanted hand holds every so many yards (can't recall number several years later), and also require them at turns &gt; than 45 degrees. That way if we needed to branch off, we could do it at a turn (usually at a street intersection). When the project got approved somewhere up the chain, locate wires, and the hand holds at turns got eliminated.

When we added a new building on line, we ended up having to pay additional cost for a single hand hold, and putting fiber across a street... A couple months later, the fiber was cut b/c there was no locate wire to locate the cable that had not been reported to dig test, because it would cost too much according to engineering.

Stinks that that kind of oversight for a few dollars costs the tax payers in the end. Things like backups, locate wires etc are called insurance, maybe us IT Folk should start calling it that... Insurance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Working for a local government , it does not matter what the IT department recommends or requires in a project .
Sometimes upper management just do n't get it , and cut things out of projects to save a buck .
One example I can think of was hand holds .
At a few hundred dollars a pop , we wanted hand holds every so many yards ( ca n't recall number several years later ) , and also require them at turns &gt; than 45 degrees .
That way if we needed to branch off , we could do it at a turn ( usually at a street intersection ) .
When the project got approved somewhere up the chain , locate wires , and the hand holds at turns got eliminated .
When we added a new building on line , we ended up having to pay additional cost for a single hand hold , and putting fiber across a street... A couple months later , the fiber was cut b/c there was no locate wire to locate the cable that had not been reported to dig test , because it would cost too much according to engineering .
Stinks that that kind of oversight for a few dollars costs the tax payers in the end .
Things like backups , locate wires etc are called insurance , maybe us IT Folk should start calling it that... Insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working for a local government, it does not matter what the IT department recommends or requires in a project.
Sometimes upper management just don't get it, and cut things out of projects to save a buck.
One example I can think of was hand holds.
At a few hundred dollars a pop, we wanted hand holds every so many yards (can't recall number several years later), and also require them at turns &gt; than 45 degrees.
That way if we needed to branch off, we could do it at a turn (usually at a street intersection).
When the project got approved somewhere up the chain, locate wires, and the hand holds at turns got eliminated.
When we added a new building on line, we ended up having to pay additional cost for a single hand hold, and putting fiber across a street... A couple months later, the fiber was cut b/c there was no locate wire to locate the cable that had not been reported to dig test, because it would cost too much according to engineering.
Stinks that that kind of oversight for a few dollars costs the tax payers in the end.
Things like backups, locate wires etc are called insurance, maybe us IT Folk should start calling it that... Insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217382</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259094600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's part of every company's business to provide service to the customers in an ethical manner?  What planet do you live in?</p><p>Cellphone price gouging, internet throttling / internet termination without warning and withholding limits so people can't even try to stay under, a large number of every software-development contract negotiation (according to some articles here)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's part of every company 's business to provide service to the customers in an ethical manner ?
What planet do you live in ? Cellphone price gouging , internet throttling / internet termination without warning and withholding limits so people ca n't even try to stay under , a large number of every software-development contract negotiation ( according to some articles here ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's part of every company's business to provide service to the customers in an ethical manner?
What planet do you live in?Cellphone price gouging, internet throttling / internet termination without warning and withholding limits so people can't even try to stay under, a large number of every software-development contract negotiation (according to some articles here)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213308</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They're not in business to keep the state government afloat"</p><p>So much for corporate social responsibility, which corporations do claim to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're not in business to keep the state government afloat " So much for corporate social responsibility , which corporations do claim to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're not in business to keep the state government afloat"So much for corporate social responsibility, which corporations do claim to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216442</id>
	<title>Re:outsourcing</title>
	<author>jcnnghm</author>
	<datestamp>1259089680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government can't properly spec a problem causing outages, and it's the fault of "free enterprise".  You people sure have a vivid imagination.  From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The problem of no-redundancy . . . accounts for 90 percent of our outages," said David W. Burhop, the DMV's chief information officer.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.</p></div><p>Smells like government incompetence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government ca n't properly spec a problem causing outages , and it 's the fault of " free enterprise " .
You people sure have a vivid imagination .
From the article : " The problem of no-redundancy .
. .
accounts for 90 percent of our outages , " said David W. Burhop , the DMV 's chief information officer .
" The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out did n't have redundancy , backup , " Coulter said yesterday .
" The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network.Smells like government incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government can't properly spec a problem causing outages, and it's the fault of "free enterprise".
You people sure have a vivid imagination.
From the article:"The problem of no-redundancy .
. .
accounts for 90 percent of our outages," said David W. Burhop, the DMV's chief information officer.
"The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday.
"The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers .
. .
in the network.Smells like government incompetence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30259330</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1259433060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you need backups, when you have a Time Machine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need backups , when you have a Time Machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need backups, when you have a Time Machine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212906</id>
	<title>Is that meant to be irony?</title>
	<author>realxmp</author>
	<datestamp>1259073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.</p></div><p>Either that was a terrible attempt at irony or you really really weren't watching closely enough. The Galaxy class had at least two redundant paths for every key primary system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek , for example ?
you have n't .
The future requires no backups.Either that was a terrible attempt at irony or you really really were n't watching closely enough .
The Galaxy class had at least two redundant paths for every key primary system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example?
you haven't.
The future requires no backups.Either that was a terrible attempt at irony or you really really weren't watching closely enough.
The Galaxy class had at least two redundant paths for every key primary system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212808</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Publikwerks</author>
	<datestamp>1259073180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the state's fault for not putting that in the contract. I have worked for state contractors who handle IT services, and the state always had a downtime penalty written in to the contract, so it was too expensive to be down not to have a redundant system. This is probably a case of penny pushers not doing their homework, seeing that one system is cheaper than two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the state 's fault for not putting that in the contract .
I have worked for state contractors who handle IT services , and the state always had a downtime penalty written in to the contract , so it was too expensive to be down not to have a redundant system .
This is probably a case of penny pushers not doing their homework , seeing that one system is cheaper than two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the state's fault for not putting that in the contract.
I have worked for state contractors who handle IT services, and the state always had a downtime penalty written in to the contract, so it was too expensive to be down not to have a redundant system.
This is probably a case of penny pushers not doing their homework, seeing that one system is cheaper than two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730</id>
	<title>outsourcing</title>
	<author>Clover\_Kicker</author>
	<datestamp>1259072760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I thought the magic pixie dust of free enterprise would make outsourcing something to the private sector cheaper, more efficient, and better in every possible way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I thought the magic pixie dust of free enterprise would make outsourcing something to the private sector cheaper , more efficient , and better in every possible way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I thought the magic pixie dust of free enterprise would make outsourcing something to the private sector cheaper, more efficient, and better in every possible way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216058</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259088060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Happens with government contracts all the time.</p><p>McDonnell Douglas vs. Locheed Martin.  Often times McDonnell Douglas would create a design that went beyond the spec, including many of those "Well it should have this, or that".  Locheed bided the contract spec, nothing more, and in the last few rounds of fighter programs won because they bid the spec.  Then when the AF or Navy would come back and say, "Gee it should do XYZ" Locheed would say "Sure, it will be another $XX Million".</p><p>McDonnell Douglas did a review of why it lost the ATF, JSF, and a couple other projects and the conclusion was "Technical Arrogance".  They were telling the DoD what they needed instead of trying to delivery a proposal for what the DoD specified in their request.  And nothing pisses off the bureaucrats than to be told they were wrong on their specs.</p><p>Sadly I see this a lot.  I do consulting on some joint projects with the University here in town and when we go to apply for grants, 95\% of the battle of is making sure we write the proposal to exactly what is in the spec with all the i's and t's dotted/crossed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Happens with government contracts all the time.McDonnell Douglas vs. Locheed Martin .
Often times McDonnell Douglas would create a design that went beyond the spec , including many of those " Well it should have this , or that " .
Locheed bided the contract spec , nothing more , and in the last few rounds of fighter programs won because they bid the spec .
Then when the AF or Navy would come back and say , " Gee it should do XYZ " Locheed would say " Sure , it will be another $ XX Million " .McDonnell Douglas did a review of why it lost the ATF , JSF , and a couple other projects and the conclusion was " Technical Arrogance " .
They were telling the DoD what they needed instead of trying to delivery a proposal for what the DoD specified in their request .
And nothing pisses off the bureaucrats than to be told they were wrong on their specs.Sadly I see this a lot .
I do consulting on some joint projects with the University here in town and when we go to apply for grants , 95 \ % of the battle of is making sure we write the proposal to exactly what is in the spec with all the i 's and t 's dotted/crossed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happens with government contracts all the time.McDonnell Douglas vs. Locheed Martin.
Often times McDonnell Douglas would create a design that went beyond the spec, including many of those "Well it should have this, or that".
Locheed bided the contract spec, nothing more, and in the last few rounds of fighter programs won because they bid the spec.
Then when the AF or Navy would come back and say, "Gee it should do XYZ" Locheed would say "Sure, it will be another $XX Million".McDonnell Douglas did a review of why it lost the ATF, JSF, and a couple other projects and the conclusion was "Technical Arrogance".
They were telling the DoD what they needed instead of trying to delivery a proposal for what the DoD specified in their request.
And nothing pisses off the bureaucrats than to be told they were wrong on their specs.Sadly I see this a lot.
I do consulting on some joint projects with the University here in town and when we go to apply for grants, 95\% of the battle of is making sure we write the proposal to exactly what is in the spec with all the i's and t's dotted/crossed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214118</id>
	<title>Re:Easy</title>
	<author>breagerey</author>
	<datestamp>1259080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spot on
<br> <br>
Backups don't prevent outages - they help minimize the downtime caused by them.
In this case, with 12 outages in such a short time, the lack of backup is just an indicator of base incompetence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on Backups do n't prevent outages - they help minimize the downtime caused by them .
In this case , with 12 outages in such a short time , the lack of backup is just an indicator of base incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on
 
Backups don't prevent outages - they help minimize the downtime caused by them.
In this case, with 12 outages in such a short time, the lack of backup is just an indicator of base incompetence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212996</id>
	<title>Va/VITA/NG == Navy/NMCI/EDS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same fiasco that the Navy went through with EDS and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2004/pulpit\_20040318\_000806.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">NMCI</a> [pbs.org].  Does no one at the state IT level read trade mags?  This crap was all over the IT news magazines when the EDS contract was blowing up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same fiasco that the Navy went through with EDS and NMCI [ pbs.org ] .
Does no one at the state IT level read trade mags ?
This crap was all over the IT news magazines when the EDS contract was blowing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same fiasco that the Navy went through with EDS and NMCI [pbs.org].
Does no one at the state IT level read trade mags?
This crap was all over the IT news magazines when the EDS contract was blowing up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212832</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know that Northrup didn't suggest them?  Or that Northrop wasn't the lowest qualified bidder by being the only one not to include backups in their bid?  When you buy a computer do you expect the vendor to throw in a free backup system even though you didn't ask for it "because you should have it"?</p><p>Sounds to me like the state got what it ordered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know that Northrup did n't suggest them ?
Or that Northrop was n't the lowest qualified bidder by being the only one not to include backups in their bid ?
When you buy a computer do you expect the vendor to throw in a free backup system even though you did n't ask for it " because you should have it " ? Sounds to me like the state got what it ordered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know that Northrup didn't suggest them?
Or that Northrop wasn't the lowest qualified bidder by being the only one not to include backups in their bid?
When you buy a computer do you expect the vendor to throw in a free backup system even though you didn't ask for it "because you should have it"?Sounds to me like the state got what it ordered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213836</id>
	<title>Staffed by 2nd rate people?</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1259078760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Northrop Grumman's core business is making airplanes (at least it was).  So what we have here is a non-core business effort on behalf of a state government contract.  I'll bet it was staffed by the B team at Northrup Grumman because real IT hot shots just are not motivated to get out of bed in the morning to chase state government contracts.  On top of this staffing issues, I'm sure the government had lots of non-standard 'requirements' from insecure bureaucrats that need to justify their jobs. This is a lethal combination of doom for this project.  The solution is standard requirements shared by lots of similar customers that is chased after by multiple competing vendors but I suspect the politics of patronage in Virginia would never let that happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Northrop Grumman 's core business is making airplanes ( at least it was ) .
So what we have here is a non-core business effort on behalf of a state government contract .
I 'll bet it was staffed by the B team at Northrup Grumman because real IT hot shots just are not motivated to get out of bed in the morning to chase state government contracts .
On top of this staffing issues , I 'm sure the government had lots of non-standard 'requirements ' from insecure bureaucrats that need to justify their jobs .
This is a lethal combination of doom for this project .
The solution is standard requirements shared by lots of similar customers that is chased after by multiple competing vendors but I suspect the politics of patronage in Virginia would never let that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Northrop Grumman's core business is making airplanes (at least it was).
So what we have here is a non-core business effort on behalf of a state government contract.
I'll bet it was staffed by the B team at Northrup Grumman because real IT hot shots just are not motivated to get out of bed in the morning to chase state government contracts.
On top of this staffing issues, I'm sure the government had lots of non-standard 'requirements' from insecure bureaucrats that need to justify their jobs.
This is a lethal combination of doom for this project.
The solution is standard requirements shared by lots of similar customers that is chased after by multiple competing vendors but I suspect the politics of patronage in Virginia would never let that happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213386</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1259076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to having health care!</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I 'm really looking forward to having health care ! FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to having health care!FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214462</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all. This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one. I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.</p></div><p>And by the way, in case some Slashdot readers don't know... "BCP" means "Business Continuity Plan"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not just backups , it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all .
This is a massive oversight , but a fairly common one .
I 've consulted for a number of years , and it 's amazing at how many companies do n't have a BCP plan at all , and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.And by the way , in case some Slashdot readers do n't know... " BCP " means " Business Continuity Plan "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all.
This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one.
I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.And by the way, in case some Slashdot readers don't know... "BCP" means "Business Continuity Plan"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy that it's necessarily the government's fault for not specifying backups.</p><p>The customer should only have to say "we need a system that does X, it needs to be up Y\% of the time, with an MTTR of no more than Z." They don't know, and shouldn't have to specify technical details. It's up to the provider to design a system that does that.</p><p>As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy that it 's necessarily the government 's fault for not specifying backups.The customer should only have to say " we need a system that does X , it needs to be up Y \ % of the time , with an MTTR of no more than Z .
" They do n't know , and should n't have to specify technical details .
It 's up to the provider to design a system that does that.As another poster mentioned , though , it 's quite likely that NG came back and said here 's a system that will do that , and it will cost X , and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA .
I 'm in that business , and this happens all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy that it's necessarily the government's fault for not specifying backups.The customer should only have to say "we need a system that does X, it needs to be up Y\% of the time, with an MTTR of no more than Z.
" They don't know, and shouldn't have to specify technical details.
It's up to the provider to design a system that does that.As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA.
I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30231486</id>
	<title>Notes From Project Scope Meeting</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1257162540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Northrop Grumman PM: "So, let's talk about backup requirements"</p><p>Virginia State Pointy Haired Boss: "But the SAN's RAID, isn't it? We'll be fine"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Northrop Grumman PM : " So , let 's talk about backup requirements " Virginia State Pointy Haired Boss : " But the SAN 's RAID , is n't it ?
We 'll be fine "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Northrop Grumman PM: "So, let's talk about backup requirements"Virginia State Pointy Haired Boss: "But the SAN's RAID, isn't it?
We'll be fine"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213670</id>
	<title>What makes you think there are any people?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1259078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think you get actual people when you outsource? People cost money, which reduces profitability.</p><p>As long as the systems are inside SLA, what's the problem?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think you get actual people when you outsource ?
People cost money , which reduces profitability.As long as the systems are inside SLA , what 's the problem ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think you get actual people when you outsource?
People cost money, which reduces profitability.As long as the systems are inside SLA, what's the problem?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1259077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.</p></div><p>I hate when this is offered as an excuse for shoddy work.  "It's not their job to do good work.  It's their job to make money."  Yeah?  So what.  It strikes me a little like saying, "Hey, can't blame a con man for stealing your money.  That's what con men do!"
</p><p>I don't know this particular situation well enough to say who is at fault and to what degree, but it's part of their business to service their customers well.  It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not in business to keep the state government afloat , their only purpose is to make money.I hate when this is offered as an excuse for shoddy work .
" It 's not their job to do good work .
It 's their job to make money .
" Yeah ?
So what .
It strikes me a little like saying , " Hey , ca n't blame a con man for stealing your money .
That 's what con men do !
" I do n't know this particular situation well enough to say who is at fault and to what degree , but it 's part of their business to service their customers well .
It 's part of every company 's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.I hate when this is offered as an excuse for shoddy work.
"It's not their job to do good work.
It's their job to make money.
"  Yeah?
So what.
It strikes me a little like saying, "Hey, can't blame a con man for stealing your money.
That's what con men do!
"
I don't know this particular situation well enough to say who is at fault and to what degree, but it's part of their business to service their customers well.
It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215242</id>
	<title>Re:Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259084340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the contract specified using the "latest technology" so they spec'ed Windows Vista. Need I say more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the contract specified using the " latest technology " so they spec'ed Windows Vista .
Need I say more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the contract specified using the "latest technology" so they spec'ed Windows Vista.
Need I say more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213034</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>skgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1259074440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I absolutely love the fact that my post got moderated "overrated". Apparently we have some management types on Slashdot these day that got some mod points. It's a perfect example of how some people feel about BCP.
<br> <br>
And uh, aren't "overrated" mod points for things that have been modded up a whole bunch that you don't agree with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely love the fact that my post got moderated " overrated " .
Apparently we have some management types on Slashdot these day that got some mod points .
It 's a perfect example of how some people feel about BCP .
And uh , are n't " overrated " mod points for things that have been modded up a whole bunch that you do n't agree with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely love the fact that my post got moderated "overrated".
Apparently we have some management types on Slashdot these day that got some mod points.
It's a perfect example of how some people feel about BCP.
And uh, aren't "overrated" mod points for things that have been modded up a whole bunch that you don't agree with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218444</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1259056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner."</p><p>What's unethical about depolying to specs?  The most you can do is rise concern and offer a remedy but then, if the customer doesn't buy in, what else do you expect to be done?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's part of every company 's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner .
" What 's unethical about depolying to specs ?
The most you can do is rise concern and offer a remedy but then , if the customer does n't buy in , what else do you expect to be done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner.
"What's unethical about depolying to specs?
The most you can do is rise concern and offer a remedy but then, if the customer doesn't buy in, what else do you expect to be done?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214538</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break this to you, but in the eyes of most slashdotters, BCP is for management types.</p><p>That's right, Mr Consultant, YOU are the management type here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break this to you , but in the eyes of most slashdotters , BCP is for management types.That 's right , Mr Consultant , YOU are the management type here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break this to you, but in the eyes of most slashdotters, BCP is for management types.That's right, Mr Consultant, YOU are the management type here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217538</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259095200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the part where the next contract covers what wasn't in the first one. And usually at double the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the part where the next contract covers what was n't in the first one .
And usually at double the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the part where the next contract covers what wasn't in the first one.
And usually at double the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218946</id>
	<title>Surprising...</title>
	<author>CharlesJS</author>
	<datestamp>1259058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>shoulda woulda coulda....how is this surprising to anyone? I wonder if the GSA will get an overhaul under the new administration to potentially help nick these kinds of things in the butt.


More importantly, where was <a href="https://iosafe.com/network\_attached/4x1TB-NAS-storage-appliance" title="iosafe.com" rel="nofollow">ioSafe</a> [iosafe.com] when they needed them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>shoulda woulda coulda....how is this surprising to anyone ?
I wonder if the GSA will get an overhaul under the new administration to potentially help nick these kinds of things in the butt .
More importantly , where was ioSafe [ iosafe.com ] when they needed them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shoulda woulda coulda....how is this surprising to anyone?
I wonder if the GSA will get an overhaul under the new administration to potentially help nick these kinds of things in the butt.
More importantly, where was ioSafe [iosafe.com] when they needed them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1259075040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough. But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:</p><p>* Deliver a offer for the system requested.<br>* Get the deal signed<br>* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?</p><p>Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough .
But as you say , Northrop is in the business of making money , so it would 've made sense for them to do the following : * Deliver a offer for the system requested .
* Get the deal signed * Say : We notice you 've not specified any backup , do you want that additionally ? Gives them a chance to upsell , AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough.
But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:* Deliver a offer for the system requested.
* Get the deal signed* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212904</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, yes. In one episode of NG they had to purge the system of malware and indeed used their backup. The only time I ever saw a backup where I work was when it was part of my job to change the tapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , yes .
In one episode of NG they had to purge the system of malware and indeed used their backup .
The only time I ever saw a backup where I work was when it was part of my job to change the tapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, yes.
In one episode of NG they had to purge the system of malware and indeed used their backup.
The only time I ever saw a backup where I work was when it was part of my job to change the tapes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</id>
	<title>They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1259072880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?</p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240" title="slashdot.org">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how Virginia 's health records were compromised earlier this year ? http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/05/05/1232240 [ slashdot.org ] Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I 'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240 [slashdot.org]Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213286</id>
	<title>THIS explains all the closed rest stops in VA...</title>
	<author>volxdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259075880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *knew* there had to be some other reason why they closed half the interstate rest stops in VA, this is obviously where the money was (mis)spent...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * knew * there had to be some other reason why they closed half the interstate rest stops in VA , this is obviously where the money was ( mis ) spent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *knew* there had to be some other reason why they closed half the interstate rest stops in VA, this is obviously where the money was (mis)spent...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214074</id>
	<title>Re:Network connections, not system backups...</title>
	<author>varmittang</author>
	<datestamp>1259079900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you finished RTFA, they didn't have these problems until it was outsourced.<br><br>"But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event."<br><br>So during the planning stage, someone in the gov't and NG f'ed up in not seeing that backup lines were in place, and they should stay in place.  But that aside, why are the lines going out is the question?  Was NG contracting to a poor provider that could barely keep their DNS systems up or were they working with AT&amp;T/Verizon, or was it actual lines outside that would be cut that would cause the outages?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you finished RTFA , they did n't have these problems until it was outsourced .
" But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load , the transportation agency 's Hampton Roads ' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event .
" So during the planning stage , someone in the gov't and NG f'ed up in not seeing that backup lines were in place , and they should stay in place .
But that aside , why are the lines going out is the question ?
Was NG contracting to a poor provider that could barely keep their DNS systems up or were they working with AT&amp;T/Verizon , or was it actual lines outside that would be cut that would cause the outages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you finished RTFA, they didn't have these problems until it was outsourced.
"But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event.
"So during the planning stage, someone in the gov't and NG f'ed up in not seeing that backup lines were in place, and they should stay in place.
But that aside, why are the lines going out is the question?
Was NG contracting to a poor provider that could barely keep their DNS systems up or were they working with AT&amp;T/Verizon, or was it actual lines outside that would be cut that would cause the outages?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216032</id>
	<title>Re:Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1259088000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is also something that can be addressed in the design of the software at the site.  As someone who runs a site with redundant links, I can say-- it's not for everyone.  It is very expensive, and running requires a high level of competence, which also means $$$.
<br> <br>
OTOH, if you design your software so that your software can tolerate periodic downtime, this kind of problem can be mitigated.  Instead of the knee-jerk reaction, "install redundant links!", VA should probably analyze the data on failures and see which solution or combination of solutions would be the most cost-effective.
<br> <br>
In the past, I too, have been involved in the bidding process.  One of my first jobs out of college was to help write them at a University, so I understand the perils of only getting what you pay for.  But I also know that the process is not so rigid that a vendor can't say, "Hey!  You're missing an important piece here!" at which point the original process is recalled, and a new one starts.  So I fault Northrup here-- the perils of distributed systems have been well-known for at least 40 years, with Northrup being in a position of great experience.  They could have easily made the case that the specifications were incomplete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also something that can be addressed in the design of the software at the site .
As someone who runs a site with redundant links , I can say-- it 's not for everyone .
It is very expensive , and running requires a high level of competence , which also means $ $ $ .
OTOH , if you design your software so that your software can tolerate periodic downtime , this kind of problem can be mitigated .
Instead of the knee-jerk reaction , " install redundant links !
" , VA should probably analyze the data on failures and see which solution or combination of solutions would be the most cost-effective .
In the past , I too , have been involved in the bidding process .
One of my first jobs out of college was to help write them at a University , so I understand the perils of only getting what you pay for .
But I also know that the process is not so rigid that a vendor ca n't say , " Hey !
You 're missing an important piece here !
" at which point the original process is recalled , and a new one starts .
So I fault Northrup here-- the perils of distributed systems have been well-known for at least 40 years , with Northrup being in a position of great experience .
They could have easily made the case that the specifications were incomplete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also something that can be addressed in the design of the software at the site.
As someone who runs a site with redundant links, I can say-- it's not for everyone.
It is very expensive, and running requires a high level of competence, which also means $$$.
OTOH, if you design your software so that your software can tolerate periodic downtime, this kind of problem can be mitigated.
Instead of the knee-jerk reaction, "install redundant links!
", VA should probably analyze the data on failures and see which solution or combination of solutions would be the most cost-effective.
In the past, I too, have been involved in the bidding process.
One of my first jobs out of college was to help write them at a University, so I understand the perils of only getting what you pay for.
But I also know that the process is not so rigid that a vendor can't say, "Hey!
You're missing an important piece here!
" at which point the original process is recalled, and a new one starts.
So I fault Northrup here-- the perils of distributed systems have been well-known for at least 40 years, with Northrup being in a position of great experience.
They could have easily made the case that the specifications were incomplete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213820</id>
	<title>Better Terminology</title>
	<author>Atomm</author>
	<datestamp>1259078700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The OP would make a heck of a lot more sense if they used better terminology. Rather than Network Backup, call it Network Redundancy or High Availability. When people hear backup, they think storing data to tape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP would make a heck of a lot more sense if they used better terminology .
Rather than Network Backup , call it Network Redundancy or High Availability .
When people hear backup , they think storing data to tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP would make a heck of a lot more sense if they used better terminology.
Rather than Network Backup, call it Network Redundancy or High Availability.
When people hear backup, they think storing data to tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213334</id>
	<title>Re:That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ideal backup system is invisible. You don't even know when you're using it because it took over seamlessly. An alert comes up in the noc and the primary is repaired behind the scenes.</p><p>That doesn't work in the world we live in. Such systems cost a good bit more money and even if funded initially, will go away soon enough due to budget cuts because management says "we don't need backups because we've never had an outage" while the techs know the backups seamlessly took over 3 times in the last year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ideal backup system is invisible .
You do n't even know when you 're using it because it took over seamlessly .
An alert comes up in the noc and the primary is repaired behind the scenes.That does n't work in the world we live in .
Such systems cost a good bit more money and even if funded initially , will go away soon enough due to budget cuts because management says " we do n't need backups because we 've never had an outage " while the techs know the backups seamlessly took over 3 times in the last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ideal backup system is invisible.
You don't even know when you're using it because it took over seamlessly.
An alert comes up in the noc and the primary is repaired behind the scenes.That doesn't work in the world we live in.
Such systems cost a good bit more money and even if funded initially, will go away soon enough due to budget cuts because management says "we don't need backups because we've never had an outage" while the techs know the backups seamlessly took over 3 times in the last year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213510</id>
	<title>Shocker!  Gov't contractor lied!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA "The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs."</p><p>So basically they gave 2.3 billion to a giant gov't contractor because they said they could do it better and cheaper.  News flash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they lied.  The cheaper comes from eliminating anything you didn't specify as absolutely essential, like network backups.  So far it looks like the only thing they do better is cash your checks.  The state will now scramble around trying to add in some redundant network connections, starting with their high priority targets.  Anyone want to bet that when they finally get everything stabilized the new outsourced system that was supposed to be "holding down costs" will end up costing significantly more than anyone imagined.  That is how gov't contractors work.  They put in a low ball bid, and make sure that anything that is not explicitly defined in the contract is billed at rates that make up the difference.  Your fault VA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA " The 10-year , $ 2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies ' computer networks , PCs , phones , servers and e-mail systems , while holding down costs .
" So basically they gave 2.3 billion to a giant gov't contractor because they said they could do it better and cheaper .
News flash ... they lied .
The cheaper comes from eliminating anything you did n't specify as absolutely essential , like network backups .
So far it looks like the only thing they do better is cash your checks .
The state will now scramble around trying to add in some redundant network connections , starting with their high priority targets .
Anyone want to bet that when they finally get everything stabilized the new outsourced system that was supposed to be " holding down costs " will end up costing significantly more than anyone imagined .
That is how gov't contractors work .
They put in a low ball bid , and make sure that anything that is not explicitly defined in the contract is billed at rates that make up the difference .
Your fault VA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA "The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs.
"So basically they gave 2.3 billion to a giant gov't contractor because they said they could do it better and cheaper.
News flash ... they lied.
The cheaper comes from eliminating anything you didn't specify as absolutely essential, like network backups.
So far it looks like the only thing they do better is cash your checks.
The state will now scramble around trying to add in some redundant network connections, starting with their high priority targets.
Anyone want to bet that when they finally get everything stabilized the new outsourced system that was supposed to be "holding down costs" will end up costing significantly more than anyone imagined.
That is how gov't contractors work.
They put in a low ball bid, and make sure that anything that is not explicitly defined in the contract is billed at rates that make up the difference.
Your fault VA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220814</id>
	<title>Re:Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company. That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation. Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.</i> <br> <br>If they don't meet the SLAs, then they should be paying big bucks back.  If they are meeting the SLAs (or there aren't any) then the government seriously screwed up.  I don't care if there is redundancy in my network.  I care if it works.  If the provider is so crappy that I need 2 circuits or such, then they should be there.  If the circuits are more reliable, then I don't need the redundancy.  But if you don't tell your contractor what's important and how important it is (usually via SLAs), then you screwed up, not the contractor.  And if they say something like "I expected 100\%" then they are too stupid to work in IT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company .
That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation .
Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure .
If they do n't meet the SLAs , then they should be paying big bucks back .
If they are meeting the SLAs ( or there are n't any ) then the government seriously screwed up .
I do n't care if there is redundancy in my network .
I care if it works .
If the provider is so crappy that I need 2 circuits or such , then they should be there .
If the circuits are more reliable , then I do n't need the redundancy .
But if you do n't tell your contractor what 's important and how important it is ( usually via SLAs ) , then you screwed up , not the contractor .
And if they say something like " I expected 100 \ % " then they are too stupid to work in IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company.
That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation.
Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.
If they don't meet the SLAs, then they should be paying big bucks back.
If they are meeting the SLAs (or there aren't any) then the government seriously screwed up.
I don't care if there is redundancy in my network.
I care if it works.
If the provider is so crappy that I need 2 circuits or such, then they should be there.
If the circuits are more reliable, then I don't need the redundancy.
But if you don't tell your contractor what's important and how important it is (usually via SLAs), then you screwed up, not the contractor.
And if they say something like "I expected 100\%" then they are too stupid to work in IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213006</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I work, we have a BCP... but it's a total fiasco.  The county has spent nearly a million dollars, and for that we have a site hosted by another county a fraction of our size.  We have a single DS3 running up there over which backup and test traffic runs.  The network was designed to be a mirror of our current network, <i>down to the IP addresses</i>, while still accessible mid-day to the agencies down here.  It's a NAT nightmare.</p><p>Oh, and the inbound link from the Internet to be used in case of disaster in the actual County is a DS3, and plans call for up to 4000 users to be able to access e-mail, remote desktop, and on occasion <i>thick client</i> via SSL VPN over that.  In recent weeks, they've decided that they also need to run VoIP for several hundred users over it, too.</p><p>I'd rather have no BCP than this embarrassment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work , we have a BCP... but it 's a total fiasco .
The county has spent nearly a million dollars , and for that we have a site hosted by another county a fraction of our size .
We have a single DS3 running up there over which backup and test traffic runs .
The network was designed to be a mirror of our current network , down to the IP addresses , while still accessible mid-day to the agencies down here .
It 's a NAT nightmare.Oh , and the inbound link from the Internet to be used in case of disaster in the actual County is a DS3 , and plans call for up to 4000 users to be able to access e-mail , remote desktop , and on occasion thick client via SSL VPN over that .
In recent weeks , they 've decided that they also need to run VoIP for several hundred users over it , too.I 'd rather have no BCP than this embarrassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work, we have a BCP... but it's a total fiasco.
The county has spent nearly a million dollars, and for that we have a site hosted by another county a fraction of our size.
We have a single DS3 running up there over which backup and test traffic runs.
The network was designed to be a mirror of our current network, down to the IP addresses, while still accessible mid-day to the agencies down here.
It's a NAT nightmare.Oh, and the inbound link from the Internet to be used in case of disaster in the actual County is a DS3, and plans call for up to 4000 users to be able to access e-mail, remote desktop, and on occasion thick client via SSL VPN over that.
In recent weeks, they've decided that they also need to run VoIP for several hundred users over it, too.I'd rather have no BCP than this embarrassment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213348</id>
	<title>15 day outage???</title>
	<author>tinkertim</author>
	<datestamp>1259076180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix.</p></div></blockquote><p>Suddenly, I don't feel so bad for that 2 1/2 hour glitch last week<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : During the first six months of the year , state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours : an average of more than 46 hours per outage .
One took 360 hours to fix.Suddenly , I do n't feel so bad for that 2 1/2 hour glitch last week : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage.
One took 360 hours to fix.Suddenly, I don't feel so bad for that 2 1/2 hour glitch last week :)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30228558</id>
	<title>possible culprits</title>
	<author>DriveDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having worked in several VA state agencies, all of which have to deal with the state IT agency, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state. I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency, but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence. That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs, but for most agencies it hinders. If you want your project to fail, become mired, or be cancelled, just get the Department of Information Technology (or whatever it's called today) involved. I'm surprised when there's a success in which they're involved, so it's no biggie when such an "oversight" occurs.

Why is it this way? Partly because political hacks in the Gov's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked in several VA state agencies , all of which have to deal with the state IT agency , I 've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state .
I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency , but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence .
That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs , but for most agencies it hinders .
If you want your project to fail , become mired , or be cancelled , just get the Department of Information Technology ( or whatever it 's called today ) involved .
I 'm surprised when there 's a success in which they 're involved , so it 's no biggie when such an " oversight " occurs .
Why is it this way ?
Partly because political hacks in the Gov 's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked in several VA state agencies, all of which have to deal with the state IT agency, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state.
I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency, but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence.
That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs, but for most agencies it hinders.
If you want your project to fail, become mired, or be cancelled, just get the Department of Information Technology (or whatever it's called today) involved.
I'm surprised when there's a success in which they're involved, so it's no biggie when such an "oversight" occurs.
Why is it this way?
Partly because political hacks in the Gov's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213310</id>
	<title>Re:outsourcing</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1259076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, that's what the free market is all about: The government paying someone to do something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , that 's what the free market is all about : The government paying someone to do something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, that's what the free market is all about: The government paying someone to do something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213450</id>
	<title>Re:They have bigger problems than just this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to paying the insurance premiums of grossly obese programmers who sit at the keyboard all day eating twinkies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to paying the insurance premiums of grossly obese programmers who sit at the keyboard all day eating twinkies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to paying the insurance premiums of grossly obese programmers who sit at the keyboard all day eating twinkies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216672</id>
	<title>The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management</title>
	<author>sysadmintech</author>
	<datestamp>1259091000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management. How many times was the project reviewed by State IT/IS professionals? How professional can they be if they can't even review a project for the most basic needs? How professional can Northrop Grumman be if they don't even notice a missing basic need in there analysis? This is just another example of the expense of outsourcing and no one being responsible for any IT/IS function. With the unemployment rate and 500,000 IT/IS professionals out of work, the US needs to start hiring in IT/IS to save money to offset their losses from outsourcing. I taught a lot of IT/IS security and none have info security jobs. With all the data stolen in the US, no one hires security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management .
How many times was the project reviewed by State IT/IS professionals ?
How professional can they be if they ca n't even review a project for the most basic needs ?
How professional can Northrop Grumman be if they do n't even notice a missing basic need in there analysis ?
This is just another example of the expense of outsourcing and no one being responsible for any IT/IS function .
With the unemployment rate and 500,000 IT/IS professionals out of work , the US needs to start hiring in IT/IS to save money to offset their losses from outsourcing .
I taught a lot of IT/IS security and none have info security jobs .
With all the data stolen in the US , no one hires security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management.
How many times was the project reviewed by State IT/IS professionals?
How professional can they be if they can't even review a project for the most basic needs?
How professional can Northrop Grumman be if they don't even notice a missing basic need in there analysis?
This is just another example of the expense of outsourcing and no one being responsible for any IT/IS function.
With the unemployment rate and 500,000 IT/IS professionals out of work, the US needs to start hiring in IT/IS to save money to offset their losses from outsourcing.
I taught a lot of IT/IS security and none have info security jobs.
With all the data stolen in the US, no one hires security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?<br></i><br>Because they didn't have to. It wasn't in the contract, so they're not going to spend the money doing it. They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.</p><p>If you don't properly specify your needs, that's your fault. Don't rely on corporate good will, because there is no such thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did Northrop , which presumably has experience in government systems , not design backups ? Because they did n't have to .
It was n't in the contract , so they 're not going to spend the money doing it .
They 're not in business to keep the state government afloat , their only purpose is to make money.If you do n't properly specify your needs , that 's your fault .
Do n't rely on corporate good will , because there is no such thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?Because they didn't have to.
It wasn't in the contract, so they're not going to spend the money doing it.
They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.If you don't properly specify your needs, that's your fault.
Don't rely on corporate good will, because there is no such thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220668</id>
	<title>Re:Easy</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1259066400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>managers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>managers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216216</id>
	<title>Re:Network redundancy not backups</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1259088840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that is assuming that you can order diverse routing that is cuircuits laid in diferent conduits and idealy from another exchange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that is assuming that you can order diverse routing that is cuircuits laid in diferent conduits and idealy from another exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is assuming that you can order diverse routing that is cuircuits laid in diferent conduits and idealy from another exchange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215358</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Northrop?</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1259084760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>True enough. But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:</p><p>* Deliver a offer for the system requested.
* Get the deal signed
* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?</p><p>Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.</p></div><p>According to article:</p><blockquote><div><p>In a unique public-private venture, Virginia agreed in 2005 to let the giant defense and information contractor Northrop Grumman run nearly all the state's IT systems.<br>

The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs. The deal also provides IT services to about 1,000 local government customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>This suggests that this was <i>not</i> just a typical IT project on public bid -- Northrop Grumman took on the responsibility of being the manager and provider of IT services, including appropriately balancing costs and risks. It does not sound like "you didn't put it in the contract" is a valid defense in this case</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough .
But as you say , Northrop is in the business of making money , so it would 've made sense for them to do the following : * Deliver a offer for the system requested .
* Get the deal signed * Say : We notice you 've not specified any backup , do you want that additionally ? Gives them a chance to upsell , AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.According to article : In a unique public-private venture , Virginia agreed in 2005 to let the giant defense and information contractor Northrop Grumman run nearly all the state 's IT systems .
The 10-year , $ 2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies ' computer networks , PCs , phones , servers and e-mail systems , while holding down costs .
The deal also provides IT services to about 1,000 local government customers.This suggests that this was not just a typical IT project on public bid -- Northrop Grumman took on the responsibility of being the manager and provider of IT services , including appropriately balancing costs and risks .
It does not sound like " you did n't put it in the contract " is a valid defense in this case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough.
But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:* Deliver a offer for the system requested.
* Get the deal signed
* Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.According to article:In a unique public-private venture, Virginia agreed in 2005 to let the giant defense and information contractor Northrop Grumman run nearly all the state's IT systems.
The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs.
The deal also provides IT services to about 1,000 local government customers.This suggests that this was not just a typical IT project on public bid -- Northrop Grumman took on the responsibility of being the manager and provider of IT services, including appropriately balancing costs and risks.
It does not sound like "you didn't put it in the contract" is a valid defense in this case
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212838</id>
	<title>Northrop Grumman outsources part of it's own IT as</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259073300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Northrop Grumman outsources part of it's own IT as well and it does not own some of it's systems they rent them or at least they did 1-2 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Northrop Grumman outsources part of it 's own IT as well and it does not own some of it 's systems they rent them or at least they did 1-2 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Northrop Grumman outsources part of it's own IT as well and it does not own some of it's systems they rent them or at least they did 1-2 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213608</id>
	<title>Re:Is that meant to be irony?</title>
	<author>theaveng</author>
	<datestamp>1259077740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true of virtually all U.S. Naval systems - redundancy.  Unfortunately a lot of the primary/secondary wiring runs in parallel, so all it takes is a single bomb to knockout both at the same time.  Rather dumb really, but even the U.S. government likes to skimp on costs.</p><p>I wonder if the UFP government also made similar stupid cost-cutting measures in the Enterprise and other ships of the line?  That would explain why both systems seem to suffer failure at least once a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true of virtually all U.S. Naval systems - redundancy .
Unfortunately a lot of the primary/secondary wiring runs in parallel , so all it takes is a single bomb to knockout both at the same time .
Rather dumb really , but even the U.S. government likes to skimp on costs.I wonder if the UFP government also made similar stupid cost-cutting measures in the Enterprise and other ships of the line ?
That would explain why both systems seem to suffer failure at least once a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true of virtually all U.S. Naval systems - redundancy.
Unfortunately a lot of the primary/secondary wiring runs in parallel, so all it takes is a single bomb to knockout both at the same time.
Rather dumb really, but even the U.S. government likes to skimp on costs.I wonder if the UFP government also made similar stupid cost-cutting measures in the Enterprise and other ships of the line?
That would explain why both systems seem to suffer failure at least once a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212872</id>
	<title>PHB who say it's cheaper to let some out side peop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHB's who say it's cheaper to let some out side people run there IT and likely say no to the higher cost plan that has backup with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHB 's who say it 's cheaper to let some out side people run there IT and likely say no to the higher cost plan that has backup with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHB's who say it's cheaper to let some out side people run there IT and likely say no to the higher cost plan that has backup with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212926</id>
	<title>Wait a second...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259073840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought government programs never fail.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought government programs never fail .
/s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought government programs never fail.
/s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704</id>
	<title>That's the way of the future...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1259072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek , for example ?
you have n't .
The future requires no backups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example?
you haven't.
The future requires no backups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30259330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_0634220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30220814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30216442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30215566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30217078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30213608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30212904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30218720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30259330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_0634220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_0634220.30214438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
