<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_2318236</id>
	<title>The 87 Lamest Moments In Tech, 2000-2009</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261392120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>harrymcc writes <i>"The last ten years have been an amazing era for tech &mdash; and full of <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/12/20/dumb-moments/">amazingly dumb moments</a>. I rounded up scads of them. I suspect you'll be able to figure out <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/">which company is most frequently represented</a>, but Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Sony, and many others are all present and accounted for, too."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>harrymcc writes " The last ten years have been an amazing era for tech    and full of amazingly dumb moments .
I rounded up scads of them .
I suspect you 'll be able to figure out which company is most frequently represented , but Apple , Google , Twitter , Facebook , Sony , and many others are all present and accounted for , too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>harrymcc writes "The last ten years have been an amazing era for tech — and full of amazingly dumb moments.
I rounded up scads of them.
I suspect you'll be able to figure out which company is most frequently represented, but Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Sony, and many others are all present and accounted for, too.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523974</id>
	<title>Probably too late to make the list...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1261499160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but Verizon's decision to make Bing the only allowable search provider on Blackberrys on its network would have made 88 easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but Verizon 's decision to make Bing the only allowable search provider on Blackberrys on its network would have made 88 easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but Verizon's decision to make Bing the only allowable search provider on Blackberrys on its network would have made 88 easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>drunkenoafoffofb3ta</author>
	<datestamp>1261489560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying you're wrong, but a journalist, Nick Davies, has built an entire book on media distortion and starts with the Y2K brouhaha and argues the opposite of what you're saying about media types.</p><p>He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: <a href="http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world" title="flatearthnews.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world</a> [flatearthnews.net]

</p><p>He ends with "This is Flat Earth news. A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true - even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying you 're wrong , but a journalist , Nick Davies , has built an entire book on media distortion and starts with the Y2K brouhaha and argues the opposite of what you 're saying about media types.He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it 's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy : http : //www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world [ flatearthnews.net ] He ends with " This is Flat Earth news .
A story appears to be true .
It is widely accepted as true .
It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true - even if it is riddled with falsehood , distortion and propaganda " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying you're wrong, but a journalist, Nick Davies, has built an entire book on media distortion and starts with the Y2K brouhaha and argues the opposite of what you're saying about media types.He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world [flatearthnews.net]

He ends with "This is Flat Earth news.
A story appears to be true.
It is widely accepted as true.
It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true - even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525858</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>Orii</author>
	<datestamp>1261508040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's not statistically valid evidence, all 4 people in my office who owned an Xbox had to have theirs replaced.  One of them had to do it twice.  That's hard to reconcile with a 5\% error rate.</p><p>Presumably the last Xbox people get actually works correctly.  By that measure, my office had 5 occurences of the problem and ended up with 4 working consoles out of the 9 total.  That's starting to sound like the 50\% failure rate.</p><p>You could argue the failure rate of the console isn't the best measure for the situation; maybe a better measure would be how many times customers ran into the issue.  My office averages 1.25 failures per Xbox owner, and 100\% of the owners had the problem at least once.  That's not good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's not statistically valid evidence , all 4 people in my office who owned an Xbox had to have theirs replaced .
One of them had to do it twice .
That 's hard to reconcile with a 5 \ % error rate.Presumably the last Xbox people get actually works correctly .
By that measure , my office had 5 occurences of the problem and ended up with 4 working consoles out of the 9 total .
That 's starting to sound like the 50 \ % failure rate.You could argue the failure rate of the console is n't the best measure for the situation ; maybe a better measure would be how many times customers ran into the issue .
My office averages 1.25 failures per Xbox owner , and 100 \ % of the owners had the problem at least once .
That 's not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's not statistically valid evidence, all 4 people in my office who owned an Xbox had to have theirs replaced.
One of them had to do it twice.
That's hard to reconcile with a 5\% error rate.Presumably the last Xbox people get actually works correctly.
By that measure, my office had 5 occurences of the problem and ended up with 4 working consoles out of the 9 total.
That's starting to sound like the 50\% failure rate.You could argue the failure rate of the console isn't the best measure for the situation; maybe a better measure would be how many times customers ran into the issue.
My office averages 1.25 failures per Xbox owner, and 100\% of the owners had the problem at least once.
That's not good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522644</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1261489680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.</p></div><p>Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade. Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't a coder , are you ?
If so , I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade .
Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't a coder, are you?
If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade.
Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523310</id>
	<title>What about KDawson?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261495500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I consider KDawson a pretty lame point in web history. A total failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider KDawson a pretty lame point in web history .
A total failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider KDawson a pretty lame point in web history.
A total failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668</id>
	<title>The Segway doesn't deserve being on this list</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1261502220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an urban setting, the Segway was, and still is, an obviously better way to move people than a car.  The fact that it couldn't get permission to use the sidewalks is more a chicken-and-egg thing than it is a fault of the basic premise.  If there were 1,000 Segway-like vehicles on the streets per day in a downtown area, you can be sure that the local laws would be modified to allow them.</p><p>One of the biggest problems with mass transit is it doesn't have a good feeder system.  We go straight from an arterial system (mass transit) to a capillary system (foot traffic), with nothing in between.  Someday someone will fill this gap.  The Segway was at least a plausible candidate to do the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an urban setting , the Segway was , and still is , an obviously better way to move people than a car .
The fact that it could n't get permission to use the sidewalks is more a chicken-and-egg thing than it is a fault of the basic premise .
If there were 1,000 Segway-like vehicles on the streets per day in a downtown area , you can be sure that the local laws would be modified to allow them.One of the biggest problems with mass transit is it does n't have a good feeder system .
We go straight from an arterial system ( mass transit ) to a capillary system ( foot traffic ) , with nothing in between .
Someday someone will fill this gap .
The Segway was at least a plausible candidate to do the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an urban setting, the Segway was, and still is, an obviously better way to move people than a car.
The fact that it couldn't get permission to use the sidewalks is more a chicken-and-egg thing than it is a fault of the basic premise.
If there were 1,000 Segway-like vehicles on the streets per day in a downtown area, you can be sure that the local laws would be modified to allow them.One of the biggest problems with mass transit is it doesn't have a good feeder system.
We go straight from an arterial system (mass transit) to a capillary system (foot traffic), with nothing in between.
Someday someone will fill this gap.
The Segway was at least a plausible candidate to do the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526016</id>
	<title>'Community college student' - point of order</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261508700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From item 4 in TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Press-release service Internet Wire is hoaxed by a former employee/<b>community college student</b> who uses it to distribute a fake release saying electronics firm Emulex is restating its earnings. The company loses $2.5 billion of value and the student pockets $250,000 by shorting its stock before being arrested.</p></div><p>Excuse me, but why the need to refer to him as a community college student?  I thought that community colleges were actually a respected type of institution in the US and are seen as a place where people can go to get an affordable education and make better of themselves. Why, then, does TFA need to highlight that this particular criminal happened to be a community college student?  Why not also mention the type of car he drives or some other irrelevant detail? Does the author of the article have something he'd like to tell us about his views on community colleges?</p><p>It reminds me of a discussion on NPR the other day about the mistresses of Tiger Woods. The media felt the need to refer to them as 'lingerie saleswomen' or 'cocktail waitresses' as if their occupation was all you needed to know about their character.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From item 4 in TFA : Press-release service Internet Wire is hoaxed by a former employee/community college student who uses it to distribute a fake release saying electronics firm Emulex is restating its earnings .
The company loses $ 2.5 billion of value and the student pockets $ 250,000 by shorting its stock before being arrested.Excuse me , but why the need to refer to him as a community college student ?
I thought that community colleges were actually a respected type of institution in the US and are seen as a place where people can go to get an affordable education and make better of themselves .
Why , then , does TFA need to highlight that this particular criminal happened to be a community college student ?
Why not also mention the type of car he drives or some other irrelevant detail ?
Does the author of the article have something he 'd like to tell us about his views on community colleges ? It reminds me of a discussion on NPR the other day about the mistresses of Tiger Woods .
The media felt the need to refer to them as 'lingerie saleswomen ' or 'cocktail waitresses ' as if their occupation was all you needed to know about their character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From item 4 in TFA:Press-release service Internet Wire is hoaxed by a former employee/community college student who uses it to distribute a fake release saying electronics firm Emulex is restating its earnings.
The company loses $2.5 billion of value and the student pockets $250,000 by shorting its stock before being arrested.Excuse me, but why the need to refer to him as a community college student?
I thought that community colleges were actually a respected type of institution in the US and are seen as a place where people can go to get an affordable education and make better of themselves.
Why, then, does TFA need to highlight that this particular criminal happened to be a community college student?
Why not also mention the type of car he drives or some other irrelevant detail?
Does the author of the article have something he'd like to tell us about his views on community colleges?It reminds me of a discussion on NPR the other day about the mistresses of Tiger Woods.
The media felt the need to refer to them as 'lingerie saleswomen' or 'cocktail waitresses' as if their occupation was all you needed to know about their character.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523240</id>
	<title>Re:The very lamest moment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261495140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS on this list? Pretty lame if you ask me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is iPhone , iPhone 3G , iPhone 3GS on this list ?
Pretty lame if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS on this list?
Pretty lame if you ask me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527942</id>
	<title>Slashdot + ipod = lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261515540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." -- Rob Malda reviewing the ipod in 2001</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No wireless .
Less space than a nomad .
Lame. " -- Rob Malda reviewing the ipod in 2001</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No wireless.
Less space than a nomad.
Lame." -- Rob Malda reviewing the ipod in 2001</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522780</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1261491180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you. Don't think that for a minute. I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.<br><br>What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers. "We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... etc., etc." Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition? All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?<br><br>THAT'S what he's referring to. Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers. Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.<br><br>But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again. He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.<br><br>Not you, poster. You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>To this ( and the other replies here ) : he 's not referring to people like you .
Do n't think that for a minute .
I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself , and I assure you , I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.What I attacked -- and what he 's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers .
" We CA N'T fix it all in time , buy beans , bullets and head for the hills !
" ... and ... " embedded systems are the great unknown , we 're all going to die , so buy beans and bullets and head for the .. .
etc. , etc .
" Have you forgotten the " Y2K Crisis Center " ( or whatever they called it ) with Sam Donaldson , on watch over the transition ?
All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming ? THAT 'S what he 's referring to .
Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers .
Yes , a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.But personally , speaking for myself , I 'll never respect Ed Yourdon again .
He was the ringleader of the " too many lines of code , it CA N'T be fixed crowd , " and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.Not you , poster .
You did a GREAT job just so that " debunkers " like me COULD say , " it 'll be a non-event .
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you.
Don't think that for a minute.
I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers.
"We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!
" ... and ... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the ...
etc., etc.
" Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition?
All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?THAT'S what he's referring to.
Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers.
Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again.
He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.Not you, poster.
You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event.
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528860</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks to the Y2K heavy lifters!</title>
	<author>Doctor Faustus</author>
	<datestamp>1261475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good lord, that was ten years ago, wasn't it?  It seems like only two or three years ago that a coworker and I went to the Metallica / Ted Nugent / Kid Rock New Years Eve concert and then back to work at 2am to see if everything seemed to still be basically working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good lord , that was ten years ago , was n't it ?
It seems like only two or three years ago that a coworker and I went to the Metallica / Ted Nugent / Kid Rock New Years Eve concert and then back to work at 2am to see if everything seemed to still be basically working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good lord, that was ten years ago, wasn't it?
It seems like only two or three years ago that a coworker and I went to the Metallica / Ted Nugent / Kid Rock New Years Eve concert and then back to work at 2am to see if everything seemed to still be basically working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525166</id>
	<title>Re:The very lamest moment?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1261504620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'd be the second lamest.  When it comes to lamossitude[1], the story is in a league of its own.</p><p>[1] Before anyone starts, it is now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be the second lamest .
When it comes to lamossitude [ 1 ] , the story is in a league of its own .
[ 1 ] Before anyone starts , it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be the second lamest.
When it comes to lamossitude[1], the story is in a league of its own.
[1] Before anyone starts, it is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527438</id>
	<title>Bad Car analogy Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261513920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're saying is that I didn't need to fix the brakes on my '68 mustang because after fixing the brakes I didn't run over little Jacky. So there never was a problem. Well there would have been one had I not fixed the brakes this exactly what happened with Y2K people fixed the problem before there was a really problem and there were people who were affected by it. There were some children who had to show up for Jury duty, They were dismissed but the law required them to show up. Also in England a major chain store would except credit cards with expiration dates past 2001.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're saying is that I did n't need to fix the brakes on my '68 mustang because after fixing the brakes I did n't run over little Jacky .
So there never was a problem .
Well there would have been one had I not fixed the brakes this exactly what happened with Y2K people fixed the problem before there was a really problem and there were people who were affected by it .
There were some children who had to show up for Jury duty , They were dismissed but the law required them to show up .
Also in England a major chain store would except credit cards with expiration dates past 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're saying is that I didn't need to fix the brakes on my '68 mustang because after fixing the brakes I didn't run over little Jacky.
So there never was a problem.
Well there would have been one had I not fixed the brakes this exactly what happened with Y2K people fixed the problem before there was a really problem and there were people who were affected by it.
There were some children who had to show up for Jury duty, They were dismissed but the law required them to show up.
Also in England a major chain store would except credit cards with expiration dates past 2001.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523390</id>
	<title>Re:#83 isn't lame, it's accurte.</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1261495980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually used to use Yahoo's link directory back when it was actively maintained. Heck, I was using it as early as '94 or '95. Then they stopped maintaining it and encouraged all visitors to use their lousy search engine, which is when I gave up and looked for other options, settling on Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually used to use Yahoo 's link directory back when it was actively maintained .
Heck , I was using it as early as '94 or '95 .
Then they stopped maintaining it and encouraged all visitors to use their lousy search engine , which is when I gave up and looked for other options , settling on Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually used to use Yahoo's link directory back when it was actively maintained.
Heck, I was using it as early as '94 or '95.
Then they stopped maintaining it and encouraged all visitors to use their lousy search engine, which is when I gave up and looked for other options, settling on Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527808</id>
	<title>article is diffuclt to read</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1261515000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The content is interesting.  But you have bore past totally uninformative titles to get to the meat of each section.  I would have like to see the reverse- an useful title and the wit in the middle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The content is interesting .
But you have bore past totally uninformative titles to get to the meat of each section .
I would have like to see the reverse- an useful title and the wit in the middle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content is interesting.
But you have bore past totally uninformative titles to get to the meat of each section.
I would have like to see the reverse- an useful title and the wit in the middle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524410</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1261501200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- The Gamecube: everything about it. A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.</p></div><p>The Gamecube sold 22 million units and the original XBox only sold 24 million.  Nintendo made money off of every single unit sold.  I wouldn't call it a failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- The Gamecube : everything about it .
A nasty , tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.The Gamecube sold 22 million units and the original XBox only sold 24 million .
Nintendo made money off of every single unit sold .
I would n't call it a failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The Gamecube: everything about it.
A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.The Gamecube sold 22 million units and the original XBox only sold 24 million.
Nintendo made money off of every single unit sold.
I wouldn't call it a failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526522</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261510680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite was a letter to the editor in a local paper from someone worried that the power plants would shut down on Y2K because, and I quote: "they would think it was 1900, and this city didn't have power in 1900."</p><p>Yes, because the programmers of the power plant's software made sure to add in an extensive database of historical knowledge. Obviously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite was a letter to the editor in a local paper from someone worried that the power plants would shut down on Y2K because , and I quote : " they would think it was 1900 , and this city did n't have power in 1900 .
" Yes , because the programmers of the power plant 's software made sure to add in an extensive database of historical knowledge .
Obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite was a letter to the editor in a local paper from someone worried that the power plants would shut down on Y2K because, and I quote: "they would think it was 1900, and this city didn't have power in 1900.
"Yes, because the programmers of the power plant's software made sure to add in an extensive database of historical knowledge.
Obviously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523034</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1261493580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I envision possible off-by-one errors if your work has to track dates over a large range, since you apparently do not realize that there is no year zero.  1 BC is followed by 1 AD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I envision possible off-by-one errors if your work has to track dates over a large range , since you apparently do not realize that there is no year zero .
1 BC is followed by 1 AD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I envision possible off-by-one errors if your work has to track dates over a large range, since you apparently do not realize that there is no year zero.
1 BC is followed by 1 AD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522232</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261484040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9. Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh... no , decade goes from x0-x9 .
Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9.
Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522704</id>
	<title>Re:I see a lot of Apple hate...</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1261490280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them? Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here. This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why did n't you post your message as a reply to one of them ?
Oh , maybe because there is n't a lot of Apple hate here .
This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you : you 're paranoid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them?
Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here.
This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522686</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory - but as usual, meaningless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261490100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno\_Domini</p><p>The AD calendar in fact was started in 525 AD, by Dionysius Exiguus. The relationship between the dates and Christs Birth are almost coincidental as there is evidence for dates between 18BC and 6AD. So discussing whether AD is zero based or one based are pretty irrelevant, as potentially it is -18 based upto +6 based.</p><p>The customer is always right and likes numbers ending in zero to start date periods with, get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno \ _DominiThe AD calendar in fact was started in 525 AD , by Dionysius Exiguus .
The relationship between the dates and Christs Birth are almost coincidental as there is evidence for dates between 18BC and 6AD .
So discussing whether AD is zero based or one based are pretty irrelevant , as potentially it is -18 based upto + 6 based.The customer is always right and likes numbers ending in zero to start date periods with , get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno\_DominiThe AD calendar in fact was started in 525 AD, by Dionysius Exiguus.
The relationship between the dates and Christs Birth are almost coincidental as there is evidence for dates between 18BC and 6AD.
So discussing whether AD is zero based or one based are pretty irrelevant, as potentially it is -18 based upto +6 based.The customer is always right and likes numbers ending in zero to start date periods with, get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523552</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261496880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you what the majority of these "bugs" were.  It was an ancient language, sadly still used, called COBOL.  It's design is for batch processing, and is why you see payroll, banks, etc using it still to this day.</p><p>Where it failed was variables are defined in "PIC" clauses which define the number of bits used to hold a variable.  When most of these COBOL programs were written a PIC 2 was used to define the Year field to save memory because of how little was in reserve.  So Years were stored from 00-99.  What had to happen was the PIC 2 declarations had to be changed to PIC 4, so years could have the century included and 20(00) could be differentiated from 19(00).  I guess technically this problem could then arise again in the year 1(0000)</p><p>I'm not going to go into great detail about how much I despise COBOL, but changing the PIC clause leads to many more changes through out the code.  Hence the time it took to fix the Y2K "bug."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you what the majority of these " bugs " were .
It was an ancient language , sadly still used , called COBOL .
It 's design is for batch processing , and is why you see payroll , banks , etc using it still to this day.Where it failed was variables are defined in " PIC " clauses which define the number of bits used to hold a variable .
When most of these COBOL programs were written a PIC 2 was used to define the Year field to save memory because of how little was in reserve .
So Years were stored from 00-99 .
What had to happen was the PIC 2 declarations had to be changed to PIC 4 , so years could have the century included and 20 ( 00 ) could be differentiated from 19 ( 00 ) .
I guess technically this problem could then arise again in the year 1 ( 0000 ) I 'm not going to go into great detail about how much I despise COBOL , but changing the PIC clause leads to many more changes through out the code .
Hence the time it took to fix the Y2K " bug .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you what the majority of these "bugs" were.
It was an ancient language, sadly still used, called COBOL.
It's design is for batch processing, and is why you see payroll, banks, etc using it still to this day.Where it failed was variables are defined in "PIC" clauses which define the number of bits used to hold a variable.
When most of these COBOL programs were written a PIC 2 was used to define the Year field to save memory because of how little was in reserve.
So Years were stored from 00-99.
What had to happen was the PIC 2 declarations had to be changed to PIC 4, so years could have the century included and 20(00) could be differentiated from 19(00).
I guess technically this problem could then arise again in the year 1(0000)I'm not going to go into great detail about how much I despise COBOL, but changing the PIC clause leads to many more changes through out the code.
Hence the time it took to fix the Y2K "bug.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524760</id>
	<title>Re:KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1261502640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd agree about OS 10.0, but, for me at least, OS 9 was worse. It required hard rebooting at least three times a day (on several computers, so it wasn't a hardware issue) would not run more than one application at a time, and was a pain in the arse with it's manual memory management. OS X 10.0 had features missing, and had some pretty annoying bugs, but it was literally orders of magnitude more stable than what had gone before it. I'm not sure this really lets it of the hook... but it wasn't a step backward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree about OS 10.0 , but , for me at least , OS 9 was worse .
It required hard rebooting at least three times a day ( on several computers , so it was n't a hardware issue ) would not run more than one application at a time , and was a pain in the arse with it 's manual memory management .
OS X 10.0 had features missing , and had some pretty annoying bugs , but it was literally orders of magnitude more stable than what had gone before it .
I 'm not sure this really lets it of the hook... but it was n't a step backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree about OS 10.0, but, for me at least, OS 9 was worse.
It required hard rebooting at least three times a day (on several computers, so it wasn't a hardware issue) would not run more than one application at a time, and was a pain in the arse with it's manual memory management.
OS X 10.0 had features missing, and had some pretty annoying bugs, but it was literally orders of magnitude more stable than what had gone before it.
I'm not sure this really lets it of the hook... but it wasn't a step backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</id>
	<title>Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>jault</author>
	<datestamp>1261484160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, if that number was smaller, I might actually click through &amp; read the article. But 87? Really? A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; didn't edit at all.</p><p>Personally, I'd prefer a much shorter list which someone made some effort to pare down to the moments that were genuinely the lamest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if that number was smaller , I might actually click through &amp; read the article .
But 87 ?
Really ? A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; did n't edit at all.Personally , I 'd prefer a much shorter list which someone made some effort to pare down to the moments that were genuinely the lamest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if that number was smaller, I might actually click through &amp; read the article.
But 87?
Really? A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; didn't edit at all.Personally, I'd prefer a much shorter list which someone made some effort to pare down to the moments that were genuinely the lamest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525446</id>
	<title>Re:The Segway doesn't deserve being on this list</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1261506060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bike rentals.  Charge a few dollars to rent a bike for the day, a few extra for a bike with one of the new in wheel electric motors installed.  Automate the system and run it like a red box; take the customer's credit card information at check-out.  Put a small GPS tracker inside the frame of the bike with a privacy statement that it will only activate if not returned to its rack within 24 hours.  If the customer reports the bike stolen put a $10 'recovery' charge on their account and use the GPS device to find it.  If they just don't bring it back charge them the regular daily rental fee up to the purchase cost of the bike.</p><p>That was about 5 minutes of effort and makes a hell of a lot more sense than a segway.  The laws are already in place and everyone knows how to ride a bike.  If you don't want to get sweaty on your way to work you can rent a motorized one.  If you're not comfortable riding on the street most places I've been to allow you to ride on the sidewalk at a jogging pace or slower.  Actually, this isn't a half bad idea; I wonder if any-one's tried it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bike rentals .
Charge a few dollars to rent a bike for the day , a few extra for a bike with one of the new in wheel electric motors installed .
Automate the system and run it like a red box ; take the customer 's credit card information at check-out .
Put a small GPS tracker inside the frame of the bike with a privacy statement that it will only activate if not returned to its rack within 24 hours .
If the customer reports the bike stolen put a $ 10 'recovery ' charge on their account and use the GPS device to find it .
If they just do n't bring it back charge them the regular daily rental fee up to the purchase cost of the bike.That was about 5 minutes of effort and makes a hell of a lot more sense than a segway .
The laws are already in place and everyone knows how to ride a bike .
If you do n't want to get sweaty on your way to work you can rent a motorized one .
If you 're not comfortable riding on the street most places I 've been to allow you to ride on the sidewalk at a jogging pace or slower .
Actually , this is n't a half bad idea ; I wonder if any-one 's tried it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bike rentals.
Charge a few dollars to rent a bike for the day, a few extra for a bike with one of the new in wheel electric motors installed.
Automate the system and run it like a red box; take the customer's credit card information at check-out.
Put a small GPS tracker inside the frame of the bike with a privacy statement that it will only activate if not returned to its rack within 24 hours.
If the customer reports the bike stolen put a $10 'recovery' charge on their account and use the GPS device to find it.
If they just don't bring it back charge them the regular daily rental fee up to the purchase cost of the bike.That was about 5 minutes of effort and makes a hell of a lot more sense than a segway.
The laws are already in place and everyone knows how to ride a bike.
If you don't want to get sweaty on your way to work you can rent a motorized one.
If you're not comfortable riding on the street most places I've been to allow you to ride on the sidewalk at a jogging pace or slower.
Actually, this isn't a half bad idea; I wonder if any-one's tried it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30533562</id>
	<title>Number 88:</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1259746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked list (without reading it, sorry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked list ( without reading it , sorry ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked list (without reading it, sorry ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522362</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1261486440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up to 6.
<br>
#88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?) don't get a mention.   <br>
#89: No mention of Windows Mobile 6.5 and how MS threw away its last chance of ever competing with the droid/iphone. <br>
#90: TFA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up to 6 .
# 88 : Also note that Google 's multiple outages this year ( and last ?
) do n't get a mention .
# 89 : No mention of Windows Mobile 6.5 and how MS threw away its last chance of ever competing with the droid/iphone .
# 90 : TFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up to 6.
#88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?
) don't get a mention.
#89: No mention of Windows Mobile 6.5 and how MS threw away its last chance of ever competing with the droid/iphone.
#90: TFA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524214</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>pecosdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261500240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you on most things, but I'm going to cut the Gamecube some slack.  I love my Gamecube, but mostly because I actually like platformers and I think the control was absolutely perfect for RPGs.  The ported from Dreamcast Skies of Arcadia Legends completely rocked, I actually enjoyed Luigi's Mansion, in my opinion Mario Kart Double Dash is the best version of Mario Kart, and I say that even with the incredibly awesome SNES version in mind.  When you have kids you learn to look at Mario Party through a whole different set of eyes.  Granted - the Gamecube was not for hardcore gamers who want FPS type games or the absolute best graphics, it was the predecessor to the Wii - more for casual gaming and the younger crowd, or in my case the platformer still likes Mario and Zelda crowd.  Personally, I'm not too excited about the Wii, oh, I'll probably get one eventually, but the Gamecube is to me exactly what the Wii is to others, a great casual gaming machine, only the Gamecube isn't based around a gimmick controller.  As a matter of fact it introduced the Wavebird Wireless, the first wireless game control on any console that didn't suck.</p><p>On the XBox360 controller, I think you meant the original XBox.</p><p>PSP actually does have region locking but they don't use it on anything but movies and it's easily defeated - at least on 1000's and 2000's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you on most things , but I 'm going to cut the Gamecube some slack .
I love my Gamecube , but mostly because I actually like platformers and I think the control was absolutely perfect for RPGs .
The ported from Dreamcast Skies of Arcadia Legends completely rocked , I actually enjoyed Luigi 's Mansion , in my opinion Mario Kart Double Dash is the best version of Mario Kart , and I say that even with the incredibly awesome SNES version in mind .
When you have kids you learn to look at Mario Party through a whole different set of eyes .
Granted - the Gamecube was not for hardcore gamers who want FPS type games or the absolute best graphics , it was the predecessor to the Wii - more for casual gaming and the younger crowd , or in my case the platformer still likes Mario and Zelda crowd .
Personally , I 'm not too excited about the Wii , oh , I 'll probably get one eventually , but the Gamecube is to me exactly what the Wii is to others , a great casual gaming machine , only the Gamecube is n't based around a gimmick controller .
As a matter of fact it introduced the Wavebird Wireless , the first wireless game control on any console that did n't suck.On the XBox360 controller , I think you meant the original XBox.PSP actually does have region locking but they do n't use it on anything but movies and it 's easily defeated - at least on 1000 's and 2000 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you on most things, but I'm going to cut the Gamecube some slack.
I love my Gamecube, but mostly because I actually like platformers and I think the control was absolutely perfect for RPGs.
The ported from Dreamcast Skies of Arcadia Legends completely rocked, I actually enjoyed Luigi's Mansion, in my opinion Mario Kart Double Dash is the best version of Mario Kart, and I say that even with the incredibly awesome SNES version in mind.
When you have kids you learn to look at Mario Party through a whole different set of eyes.
Granted - the Gamecube was not for hardcore gamers who want FPS type games or the absolute best graphics, it was the predecessor to the Wii - more for casual gaming and the younger crowd, or in my case the platformer still likes Mario and Zelda crowd.
Personally, I'm not too excited about the Wii, oh, I'll probably get one eventually, but the Gamecube is to me exactly what the Wii is to others, a great casual gaming machine, only the Gamecube isn't based around a gimmick controller.
As a matter of fact it introduced the Wavebird Wireless, the first wireless game control on any console that didn't suck.On the XBox360 controller, I think you meant the original XBox.PSP actually does have region locking but they don't use it on anything but movies and it's easily defeated - at least on 1000's and 2000's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</id>
	<title>First Paragraph</title>
	<author>datajack</author>
	<datestamp>1261483860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don&rsquo;t know what the heck they&rsquo;re talking about.</p></div></blockquote><p>No. The Experts were the ones working many, many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn, the problems were - for the main - no longer present. A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised, not ridiculed.</p><p>The people who don't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely (if ever) give due praise when things are planned and done right. "Everything's fine" doesn't make good headlines for these people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant , it proved once again that the experts often don    t know what the heck they    re talking about.No .
The Experts were the ones working many , many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn , the problems were - for the main - no longer present .
A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised , not ridiculed.The people who do n't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely ( if ever ) give due praise when things are planned and done right .
" Everything 's fine " does n't make good headlines for these people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.No.
The Experts were the ones working many, many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn, the problems were - for the main - no longer present.
A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised, not ridiculed.The people who don't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely (if ever) give due praise when things are planned and done right.
"Everything's fine" doesn't make good headlines for these people.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>farlukar</author>
	<datestamp>1261482720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>decade = 2001-2010</p><p>But at least they didn't make it a 87-page article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>decade = 2001-2010But at least they did n't make it a 87-page article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>decade = 2001-2010But at least they didn't make it a 87-page article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523128</id>
	<title>Google's Malware Blacklist</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1261494360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Marissa Mayer explains that someone accidentally added a slash mark to the list of risky sites, prompting the search engine to mistakenly believe the entire Web is hazardous.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, that was a mistake?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marissa Mayer explains that someone accidentally added a slash mark to the list of risky sites , prompting the search engine to mistakenly believe the entire Web is hazardous.Wait , that was a mistake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marissa Mayer explains that someone accidentally added a slash mark to the list of risky sites, prompting the search engine to mistakenly believe the entire Web is hazardous.Wait, that was a mistake?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522862</id>
	<title>Thanks to the Y2K heavy lifters!</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1261492080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one want to celebrate the anniversary of the Y2K Bug's passing by thanking all the people who's hark work kept it from being far far worse than the few mild annoyances we experienced.  The word I saw was some gas pumps that were locked up, and it could have been far worse if a whole lot of coders and analysts hadn't spent a ton of time pouring over reams of old code and fixing problems. Double thanks to all the Grampa Geeks who came out of retirement to show the kids how COBOL was done and why it's still so important even ten years later. A nod goes even to the suits at the top who looked beyond next quarter's numbers and funded the stitch in time would save nine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one want to celebrate the anniversary of the Y2K Bug 's passing by thanking all the people who 's hark work kept it from being far far worse than the few mild annoyances we experienced .
The word I saw was some gas pumps that were locked up , and it could have been far worse if a whole lot of coders and analysts had n't spent a ton of time pouring over reams of old code and fixing problems .
Double thanks to all the Grampa Geeks who came out of retirement to show the kids how COBOL was done and why it 's still so important even ten years later .
A nod goes even to the suits at the top who looked beyond next quarter 's numbers and funded the stitch in time would save nine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one want to celebrate the anniversary of the Y2K Bug's passing by thanking all the people who's hark work kept it from being far far worse than the few mild annoyances we experienced.
The word I saw was some gas pumps that were locked up, and it could have been far worse if a whole lot of coders and analysts hadn't spent a ton of time pouring over reams of old code and fixing problems.
Double thanks to all the Grampa Geeks who came out of retirement to show the kids how COBOL was done and why it's still so important even ten years later.
A nod goes even to the suits at the top who looked beyond next quarter's numbers and funded the stitch in time would save nine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Ren Hoak</author>
	<datestamp>1261487220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>decade = 2001-2010</p></div><p>
You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>decade = 2001-2010 You are n't a coder , are you ?
If so , I envision many off-by-one errors in your work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>decade = 2001-2010
You aren't a coder, are you?
If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523346</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261495740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"</i></p><p>Of course. Who would ever bother to read that. Nobody cares about Poland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would we know ?
It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix .
" Hey everyone , we almost nuked Poland !
" Of course .
Who would ever bother to read that .
Nobody cares about Poland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would we know?
It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix.
"Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!
"Of course.
Who would ever bother to read that.
Nobody cares about Poland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525174</id>
	<title>nr. 88</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1261504680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. bringing No. 88 to the front page<br>
2. ??<br>
3. Profit..</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
/. bringing No .
88 to the front page 2 .
? ? 3 .
Profit. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
/. bringing No.
88 to the front page
2.
??
3.
Profit..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524808</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1261502820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Mod parent up</b> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><em>...if for no other reason than because of the sig</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up ...if for no other reason than because of the sig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up  ...if for no other reason than because of the sig</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524484</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261501560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; didn't edit at all.</p></div><p>Wow, that sounds like a lame moment!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; did n't edit at all.Wow , that sounds like a lame moment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of &amp; didn't edit at all.Wow, that sounds like a lame moment!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523252</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>BodhiCat</author>
	<datestamp>1261495140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work as the tech guru in a office which is all Macs.  Despite me telling them long before that Macs weren't vulnerable to the Y2K they still freaked out as the date approached, and lo and behold, nothing happened.  woo hoo</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as the tech guru in a office which is all Macs .
Despite me telling them long before that Macs were n't vulnerable to the Y2K they still freaked out as the date approached , and lo and behold , nothing happened .
woo hoo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as the tech guru in a office which is all Macs.
Despite me telling them long before that Macs weren't vulnerable to the Y2K they still freaked out as the date approached, and lo and behold, nothing happened.
woo hoo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525214</id>
	<title>Re:#83 isn't lame, it's accurte.</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1261504800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know much about TFA's author, but I definitely got the impression from reading his damn multi-page blog post (thanks for posting another one of those to the front page, kdawson) that he didn't actually know much about the technologies he was ridiculing.  Yahoo was the most obvious example - anyone who started using the web when commercializing it was a novel idea will remember finding web pages not with an indexing search engine but with Yahoo's topical hierarchy of links.  It was well-organized and really did a great job as the yellow pages of the internet - in fact, if I am not much mistaken, it seems to me that Yahoo linked to data sources other than HTTP in those early days.  You could turn to Webcrawler for an indexed search engine, but normally you would only do that after Yahoo's categories failed you, as relevant links were much quicker to find through a hierarchy than a full-text search.  It wasn't until the web exploded in size faster than Yahoo could keep up that a text search engine was really a daily necessity, and by then the geniuses at Google were on the path to doing it right.
<br> <br>
There are other examples in TFA of things that were not at all stupid ideas.  Failures in hindsight, perhaps, but the cat-herding "even we don't know what we do" Superbowl ads were certainly more stupid at the place and time they were conceived than Steve Jobs inadvertently hitting the wrong button during a product demonstration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about TFA 's author , but I definitely got the impression from reading his damn multi-page blog post ( thanks for posting another one of those to the front page , kdawson ) that he did n't actually know much about the technologies he was ridiculing .
Yahoo was the most obvious example - anyone who started using the web when commercializing it was a novel idea will remember finding web pages not with an indexing search engine but with Yahoo 's topical hierarchy of links .
It was well-organized and really did a great job as the yellow pages of the internet - in fact , if I am not much mistaken , it seems to me that Yahoo linked to data sources other than HTTP in those early days .
You could turn to Webcrawler for an indexed search engine , but normally you would only do that after Yahoo 's categories failed you , as relevant links were much quicker to find through a hierarchy than a full-text search .
It was n't until the web exploded in size faster than Yahoo could keep up that a text search engine was really a daily necessity , and by then the geniuses at Google were on the path to doing it right .
There are other examples in TFA of things that were not at all stupid ideas .
Failures in hindsight , perhaps , but the cat-herding " even we do n't know what we do " Superbowl ads were certainly more stupid at the place and time they were conceived than Steve Jobs inadvertently hitting the wrong button during a product demonstration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about TFA's author, but I definitely got the impression from reading his damn multi-page blog post (thanks for posting another one of those to the front page, kdawson) that he didn't actually know much about the technologies he was ridiculing.
Yahoo was the most obvious example - anyone who started using the web when commercializing it was a novel idea will remember finding web pages not with an indexing search engine but with Yahoo's topical hierarchy of links.
It was well-organized and really did a great job as the yellow pages of the internet - in fact, if I am not much mistaken, it seems to me that Yahoo linked to data sources other than HTTP in those early days.
You could turn to Webcrawler for an indexed search engine, but normally you would only do that after Yahoo's categories failed you, as relevant links were much quicker to find through a hierarchy than a full-text search.
It wasn't until the web exploded in size faster than Yahoo could keep up that a text search engine was really a daily necessity, and by then the geniuses at Google were on the path to doing it right.
There are other examples in TFA of things that were not at all stupid ideas.
Failures in hindsight, perhaps, but the cat-herding "even we don't know what we do" Superbowl ads were certainly more stupid at the place and time they were conceived than Steve Jobs inadvertently hitting the wrong button during a product demonstration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523410</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1261496040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  No.  No.  Let's put this urban myth to bed for good.  The Y2k bug was very real, but it was greatly overstated by some in the media, and by people who stood to make a lot of money by pandering to y2k fear.  For example, there were people who were loudly saying that almost every device or process that had a silicon chip in it would fail at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31, 1999.  The vast majority of these were not patched, they were left alone, and in the vast majority of cases nothing happened.  This is not because of hard-working programmers, but because there was never a problem with them in the first place.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The y2k bug was real, and in some cases it was necessary to fix potential problems before they occurred.  However, it was a far smaller problem that was made out at the time.  It was not a case of heroic programmers saving the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
No. No .
Let 's put this urban myth to bed for good .
The Y2k bug was very real , but it was greatly overstated by some in the media , and by people who stood to make a lot of money by pandering to y2k fear .
For example , there were people who were loudly saying that almost every device or process that had a silicon chip in it would fail at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31 , 1999 .
The vast majority of these were not patched , they were left alone , and in the vast majority of cases nothing happened .
This is not because of hard-working programmers , but because there was never a problem with them in the first place .
          The y2k bug was real , and in some cases it was necessary to fix potential problems before they occurred .
However , it was a far smaller problem that was made out at the time .
It was not a case of heroic programmers saving the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
No.  No.
Let's put this urban myth to bed for good.
The Y2k bug was very real, but it was greatly overstated by some in the media, and by people who stood to make a lot of money by pandering to y2k fear.
For example, there were people who were loudly saying that almost every device or process that had a silicon chip in it would fail at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31, 1999.
The vast majority of these were not patched, they were left alone, and in the vast majority of cases nothing happened.
This is not because of hard-working programmers, but because there was never a problem with them in the first place.
          The y2k bug was real, and in some cases it was necessary to fix potential problems before they occurred.
However, it was a far smaller problem that was made out at the time.
It was not a case of heroic programmers saving the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523182</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261494720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except no where in the summary or title does it mention decade, just 2000-2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except no where in the summary or title does it mention decade , just 2000-2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except no where in the summary or title does it mention decade, just 2000-2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526232</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1261509600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the list itself is lame. That makes it 88 things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the list itself is lame .
That makes it 88 things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the list itself is lame.
That makes it 88 things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529886</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the one time I wish we could mod +100 Informative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the one time I wish we could mod + 100 Informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the one time I wish we could mod +100 Informative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1261489560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0 , and the second decade was from 1 to 10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522870</id>
	<title>Re:Y2K</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1261492140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspaper? What is that? Wait a sec, I think I remember those. Newspapers were those paper things that had funnies in them. Yeah. Good thing you saved that newspaper thing so that it could go bankrupt a year or two later... that's practically the same thing as all the hysteria that centered on Y2K.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:eyes rolling:</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspaper ?
What is that ?
Wait a sec , I think I remember those .
Newspapers were those paper things that had funnies in them .
Yeah. Good thing you saved that newspaper thing so that it could go bankrupt a year or two later... that 's practically the same thing as all the hysteria that centered on Y2K .
: eyes rolling :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspaper?
What is that?
Wait a sec, I think I remember those.
Newspapers were those paper things that had funnies in them.
Yeah. Good thing you saved that newspaper thing so that it could go bankrupt a year or two later... that's practically the same thing as all the hysteria that centered on Y2K.
:eyes rolling:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522884</id>
	<title>Meta-answer</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1261492200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#88 - the point when every news organization feels compelled to make really long lists of the top \_\_\_\_ of the last decade. It's like the annual "top \_\_\_\_ of the year" lists, only 10 times as lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 88 - the point when every news organization feels compelled to make really long lists of the top \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ of the last decade .
It 's like the annual " top \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ of the year " lists , only 10 times as lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#88 - the point when every news organization feels compelled to make really long lists of the top \_\_\_\_ of the last decade.
It's like the annual "top \_\_\_\_ of the year" lists, only 10 times as lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523382</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261495980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes and no.  The Media also hyped the y2k issue beyond a reasonable scope.  There were people convinced that planes would fall out of the sky and elevators would just stop wherever they were, that grocery stores would be looted because trucks would stop running and delivering food.  The (real) problem of y2k was well handled, but it was never going to change the laws of physics so planes wouldn't work any more.  THAT is why people felt let down -- if the problem was really as big as it had been hyped to be, there is no chance that we would have come out of it that cleanly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
The Media also hyped the y2k issue beyond a reasonable scope .
There were people convinced that planes would fall out of the sky and elevators would just stop wherever they were , that grocery stores would be looted because trucks would stop running and delivering food .
The ( real ) problem of y2k was well handled , but it was never going to change the laws of physics so planes would n't work any more .
THAT is why people felt let down -- if the problem was really as big as it had been hyped to be , there is no chance that we would have come out of it that cleanly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
The Media also hyped the y2k issue beyond a reasonable scope.
There were people convinced that planes would fall out of the sky and elevators would just stop wherever they were, that grocery stores would be looted because trucks would stop running and delivering food.
The (real) problem of y2k was well handled, but it was never going to change the laws of physics so planes wouldn't work any more.
THAT is why people felt let down -- if the problem was really as big as it had been hyped to be, there is no chance that we would have come out of it that cleanly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524516</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261501680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One decade is a factor of 10 difference between two numbers.<br>So, taking 2001 as starting point, a decade goes from 2001 to 20010, assuming 0 is the zero point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One decade is a factor of 10 difference between two numbers.So , taking 2001 as starting point , a decade goes from 2001 to 20010 , assuming 0 is the zero point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One decade is a factor of 10 difference between two numbers.So, taking 2001 as starting point, a decade goes from 2001 to 20010, assuming 0 is the zero point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522942</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>cp.tar</author>
	<datestamp>1261492740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd been rather pleased with Snow Leopard right until I got hit by the Hoefler Text glitch, which crashes text processors and fucks up a number of fonts. Still waiting for the fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd been rather pleased with Snow Leopard right until I got hit by the Hoefler Text glitch , which crashes text processors and fucks up a number of fonts .
Still waiting for the fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd been rather pleased with Snow Leopard right until I got hit by the Hoefler Text glitch, which crashes text processors and fucks up a number of fonts.
Still waiting for the fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524456</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1261501440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But 87? Really?</p></div><p>I got the feeling the list started as "top 100 failures", but the list author couldn't come up with the last 13. He could've gotten one closer if he had included his own list, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But 87 ?
Really ? I got the feeling the list started as " top 100 failures " , but the list author could n't come up with the last 13 .
He could 've gotten one closer if he had included his own list , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But 87?
Really?I got the feeling the list started as "top 100 failures", but the list author couldn't come up with the last 13.
He could've gotten one closer if he had included his own list, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261487880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes? The Y2K was complete idiocy running rampant due to the media clamouring the upcoming disaster that would come due to a widespread inability to update the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes ?
The Y2K was complete idiocy running rampant due to the media clamouring the upcoming disaster that would come due to a widespread inability to update the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?
The Y2K was complete idiocy running rampant due to the media clamouring the upcoming disaster that would come due to a widespread inability to update the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523308</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261495500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the very first edition, if you had a guest user, and you used it, you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone. Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1. We're now in 10.6.2. But some people just can't move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the very first edition , if you had a guest user , and you used it , you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone .
Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1 .
We 're now in 10.6.2 .
But some people just ca n't move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the very first edition, if you had a guest user, and you used it, you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone.
Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1.
We're now in 10.6.2.
But some people just can't move on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529908</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1261480200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, a decade does = 2001-2010.  It also runs from 2000-2009 and 2005 to 2015.  A decade is 10 years.  If you are trying to make the tired old 'There was no year 0.' argument, you are failing.  There was also no year 1 or year 2 or year 3.  It wasn't until much later that as a culture we picked an arbitrary time to declare as year 1.  Since all years are basically an arbitrary number that we all just happen to agree on, if the vast majority of the population decide that a century starts at the logical value of XX00 and a decade starts at the logical value of XXX0, then that is by definition when it does.  Pointing to a counting error for 2000 years ago, and claiming that we must continue to make the same counting error for the rest of our civilizations existence isn't 'intellectual'  it is exactly the opposite.<br> <br>

That doesn't even take into account the other times over the last 2000 years that the calender was just changed by those in power.  This decade as you are arguing it no more started in 2001 than this year started February.  After all, it is clear that Sept = 7, Oct = 8 and Dec = 10.<br> <br>

Or were you being sarcastic?  If, so, congratulations, you successfully trolled me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a decade does = 2001-2010 .
It also runs from 2000-2009 and 2005 to 2015 .
A decade is 10 years .
If you are trying to make the tired old 'There was no year 0 .
' argument , you are failing .
There was also no year 1 or year 2 or year 3 .
It was n't until much later that as a culture we picked an arbitrary time to declare as year 1 .
Since all years are basically an arbitrary number that we all just happen to agree on , if the vast majority of the population decide that a century starts at the logical value of XX00 and a decade starts at the logical value of XXX0 , then that is by definition when it does .
Pointing to a counting error for 2000 years ago , and claiming that we must continue to make the same counting error for the rest of our civilizations existence is n't 'intellectual ' it is exactly the opposite .
That does n't even take into account the other times over the last 2000 years that the calender was just changed by those in power .
This decade as you are arguing it no more started in 2001 than this year started February .
After all , it is clear that Sept = 7 , Oct = 8 and Dec = 10 .
Or were you being sarcastic ?
If , so , congratulations , you successfully trolled me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a decade does = 2001-2010.
It also runs from 2000-2009 and 2005 to 2015.
A decade is 10 years.
If you are trying to make the tired old 'There was no year 0.
' argument, you are failing.
There was also no year 1 or year 2 or year 3.
It wasn't until much later that as a culture we picked an arbitrary time to declare as year 1.
Since all years are basically an arbitrary number that we all just happen to agree on, if the vast majority of the population decide that a century starts at the logical value of XX00 and a decade starts at the logical value of XXX0, then that is by definition when it does.
Pointing to a counting error for 2000 years ago, and claiming that we must continue to make the same counting error for the rest of our civilizations existence isn't 'intellectual'  it is exactly the opposite.
That doesn't even take into account the other times over the last 2000 years that the calender was just changed by those in power.
This decade as you are arguing it no more started in 2001 than this year started February.
After all, it is clear that Sept = 7, Oct = 8 and Dec = 10.
Or were you being sarcastic?
If, so, congratulations, you successfully trolled me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525100</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1261504200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- The Gamecube: everything about it. A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.</p></div><p>There was no point in reading anything after this statement, as you have already colored your comment as biased and unfounded.  The Gamecube gave me hundreds of hours of entertainment, from games like Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Skies of Arcadia, Tales of Symphonia, Resident Evil 4, Zelda, and many more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- The Gamecube : everything about it .
A nasty , tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.There was no point in reading anything after this statement , as you have already colored your comment as biased and unfounded .
The Gamecube gave me hundreds of hours of entertainment , from games like Super Smash Bros , Mario Kart , Skies of Arcadia , Tales of Symphonia , Resident Evil 4 , Zelda , and many more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The Gamecube: everything about it.
A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.There was no point in reading anything after this statement, as you have already colored your comment as biased and unfounded.
The Gamecube gave me hundreds of hours of entertainment, from games like Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Skies of Arcadia, Tales of Symphonia, Resident Evil 4, Zelda, and many more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523050</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1261493700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?) don't get a mention.</p></div><p>In 2008, Google Apps did not reach its SLA. But for 2009, I think they did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># 88 : Also note that Google 's multiple outages this year ( and last ?
) do n't get a mention.In 2008 , Google Apps did not reach its SLA .
But for 2009 , I think they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?
) don't get a mention.In 2008, Google Apps did not reach its SLA.
But for 2009, I think they did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522558</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261488600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers, not the people who prevented disaster. Later he explicitly says: "It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well."</p><p>You (and the me-too's) need to find a different example to vent against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers , not the people who prevented disaster .
Later he explicitly says : " It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well .
" You ( and the me-too 's ) need to find a different example to vent against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers, not the people who prevented disaster.
Later he explicitly says: "It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well.
"You (and the me-too's) need to find a different example to vent against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261489080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?</p></div><p>How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"</p><p>Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets. That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia. We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready. Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981. However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.</p><p>But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix. The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare. Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes ? How would we know ?
It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix .
" Hey everyone , we almost nuked Poland !
" Anyway , the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts .
Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets .
That said , there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia .
We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready .
Sure enough , when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981 .
However , resetting them to the correct year worked fine.But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon does n't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix .
The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it , but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare .
Just because you never heard of it being fixed does n't mean to say that it was a made up bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?How would we know?
It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix.
"Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!
"Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts.
Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets.
That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia.
We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready.
Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981.
However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix.
The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare.
Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522656</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>EvilTwinSkippy</author>
	<datestamp>1261489800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but my list would be different than your list. And thus...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but my list would be different than your list .
And thus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but my list would be different than your list.
And thus...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527750</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1261514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think part of the problem is also geek-speak intruding into mainstream life. "Y2K" sounds weird and foreign. If it had been called "The Year 2000 Bug" or perhaps "The Millennial Bug" I don't think there would have been as much distress and alarm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think part of the problem is also geek-speak intruding into mainstream life .
" Y2K " sounds weird and foreign .
If it had been called " The Year 2000 Bug " or perhaps " The Millennial Bug " I do n't think there would have been as much distress and alarm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think part of the problem is also geek-speak intruding into mainstream life.
"Y2K" sounds weird and foreign.
If it had been called "The Year 2000 Bug" or perhaps "The Millennial Bug" I don't think there would have been as much distress and alarm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524004</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the first decade was from about -4 billion to about -4 billion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the first decade was from about -4 billion to about -4 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the first decade was from about -4 billion to about -4 billion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524420</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261501260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?</p></div></blockquote><p>A catastrophe is when every single customer who ever bought your accounting program and is paying overpriced monthly maintenance contracts that are worth a fraction of what you're charging (so that you are living easy without having to work very hard) all call and say that all their reports print $0.00 because the computer misinterpreted the requested date range and there were no transactions in 1900.  Oh, and a catastrophe is when the poor suckers who <em>didn't</em> opt for the overpriced maintenance contract, keep saying no (so that you only collect money from them for the initial sale), and the y2k bug was a great way to totally fuck them over and make them pay a ridiculous amount for a trivial bugfix (relinking) which they couldn't do for themselves because they were stupid enough to buy a proprietary application.</p><p>And yes, those catastrophes were avoided (by relinking with new libraries). The suckers paid, though those easy days eventually ended (for me, anyway).  But the world is <em>still</em> full of ignorant suckers who are getting raped routinely, due to not having a free market for their software maintenance.  I promise you all: idiocy is still out there, because even though <em>some</em> people learn, a lot of them <em>don't</em> and the lost ones are replenished by P.T. Barnum's principle.  My fellow programmers, remember to lock people into your proprietary shit in the late 2020s because 2038 will be payday again!  Y2K is <em>too</em> good to inflict on customers only once every century.  I just hope Free Software doesn't take off, because when you have market efficiencies like that, there's nothing to skim.</p><p>(But seriously: Yeah, there a few little things about my former job that I'm not too proud of, and y2k is one of them.  The bugs were real, and people really would have been unable to do routine tasks, like print paychecks, if the bugs hadn't been fixed.  Is a payroll failure a "catastrophe"?  Ok, so not in the same league as nuclear war, but it still would have been pretty bad.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes ? A catastrophe is when every single customer who ever bought your accounting program and is paying overpriced monthly maintenance contracts that are worth a fraction of what you 're charging ( so that you are living easy without having to work very hard ) all call and say that all their reports print $ 0.00 because the computer misinterpreted the requested date range and there were no transactions in 1900 .
Oh , and a catastrophe is when the poor suckers who did n't opt for the overpriced maintenance contract , keep saying no ( so that you only collect money from them for the initial sale ) , and the y2k bug was a great way to totally fuck them over and make them pay a ridiculous amount for a trivial bugfix ( relinking ) which they could n't do for themselves because they were stupid enough to buy a proprietary application.And yes , those catastrophes were avoided ( by relinking with new libraries ) .
The suckers paid , though those easy days eventually ended ( for me , anyway ) .
But the world is still full of ignorant suckers who are getting raped routinely , due to not having a free market for their software maintenance .
I promise you all : idiocy is still out there , because even though some people learn , a lot of them do n't and the lost ones are replenished by P.T .
Barnum 's principle .
My fellow programmers , remember to lock people into your proprietary shit in the late 2020s because 2038 will be payday again !
Y2K is too good to inflict on customers only once every century .
I just hope Free Software does n't take off , because when you have market efficiencies like that , there 's nothing to skim .
( But seriously : Yeah , there a few little things about my former job that I 'm not too proud of , and y2k is one of them .
The bugs were real , and people really would have been unable to do routine tasks , like print paychecks , if the bugs had n't been fixed .
Is a payroll failure a " catastrophe " ?
Ok , so not in the same league as nuclear war , but it still would have been pretty bad .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?A catastrophe is when every single customer who ever bought your accounting program and is paying overpriced monthly maintenance contracts that are worth a fraction of what you're charging (so that you are living easy without having to work very hard) all call and say that all their reports print $0.00 because the computer misinterpreted the requested date range and there were no transactions in 1900.
Oh, and a catastrophe is when the poor suckers who didn't opt for the overpriced maintenance contract, keep saying no (so that you only collect money from them for the initial sale), and the y2k bug was a great way to totally fuck them over and make them pay a ridiculous amount for a trivial bugfix (relinking) which they couldn't do for themselves because they were stupid enough to buy a proprietary application.And yes, those catastrophes were avoided (by relinking with new libraries).
The suckers paid, though those easy days eventually ended (for me, anyway).
But the world is still full of ignorant suckers who are getting raped routinely, due to not having a free market for their software maintenance.
I promise you all: idiocy is still out there, because even though some people learn, a lot of them don't and the lost ones are replenished by P.T.
Barnum's principle.
My fellow programmers, remember to lock people into your proprietary shit in the late 2020s because 2038 will be payday again!
Y2K is too good to inflict on customers only once every century.
I just hope Free Software doesn't take off, because when you have market efficiencies like that, there's nothing to skim.
(But seriously: Yeah, there a few little things about my former job that I'm not too proud of, and y2k is one of them.
The bugs were real, and people really would have been unable to do routine tasks, like print paychecks, if the bugs hadn't been fixed.
Is a payroll failure a "catastrophe"?
Ok, so not in the same league as nuclear war, but it still would have been pretty bad.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338</id>
	<title>Y2K</title>
	<author>ernst\_mulder</author>
	<datestamp>1261485840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about."</p><p>Well, that kinda hurts.</p><p>I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000. Cost quite a number of man hours. The majority of the Y2K my team had to solve weren't for the year 2000 but for passing into the year 1999 because many ordering systems had stupid (year+1) counters internally. It was a very stressful period and I very happy it went the way it did without major disasters.</p><p>The experts that didn't (and don't) know what they are talking about are the ones thinking you can upper-limit a year counter at 1999 (or 2039).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant , it proved once again that the experts often do n't know what the heck they 're talking about .
" Well , that kinda hurts.I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000 .
Cost quite a number of man hours .
The majority of the Y2K my team had to solve were n't for the year 2000 but for passing into the year 1999 because many ordering systems had stupid ( year + 1 ) counters internally .
It was a very stressful period and I very happy it went the way it did without major disasters.The experts that did n't ( and do n't ) know what they are talking about are the ones thinking you can upper-limit a year counter at 1999 ( or 2039 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about.
"Well, that kinda hurts.I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000.
Cost quite a number of man hours.
The majority of the Y2K my team had to solve weren't for the year 2000 but for passing into the year 1999 because many ordering systems had stupid (year+1) counters internally.
It was a very stressful period and I very happy it went the way it did without major disasters.The experts that didn't (and don't) know what they are talking about are the ones thinking you can upper-limit a year counter at 1999 (or 2039).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382</id>
	<title>KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1261486740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product. Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough.  Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version , and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be , and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product .
Things are better with KDE 4.later , but , KDE 4.0 , wow , you are rough .
Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still does n't work , and has been eclipsed by , well , Eclipse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product.
Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough.
Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523684</id>
	<title>Re:KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1261497540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product. Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough.  Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.</p></div><p>I like to call the KDE 4 interface a Gnomification of KDE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version , and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be , and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product .
Things are better with KDE 4.later , but , KDE 4.0 , wow , you are rough .
Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still does n't work , and has been eclipsed by , well , Eclipse.I like to call the KDE 4 interface a Gnomification of KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product.
Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough.
Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.I like to call the KDE 4 interface a Gnomification of KDE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522882</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1261492200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's true, see <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/12/snow\_leopard\_guest\_account\_bug\_deletes\_user\_data.html" title="appleinsider.com"> <b>here.</b> </a> [appleinsider.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true , see here .
[ appleinsider.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true, see  here.
[appleinsider.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164</id>
	<title>sony rootkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261482660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>never forget, never forgive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony \ _rootkit [ wikipedia.org ] never forget , never forgive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit [wikipedia.org]never forget, never forgive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522786</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>gsslay</author>
	<datestamp>1261491240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest that all slashdotters join me in ignoring this article, since the first paragraph makes if clear it was written by a fool who knows nothing of what he speaks.</p><p>Anyone who actually worked in a Y2K project knows that if the problem had been ignored then the consequences would have been disastrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest that all slashdotters join me in ignoring this article , since the first paragraph makes if clear it was written by a fool who knows nothing of what he speaks.Anyone who actually worked in a Y2K project knows that if the problem had been ignored then the consequences would have been disastrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest that all slashdotters join me in ignoring this article, since the first paragraph makes if clear it was written by a fool who knows nothing of what he speaks.Anyone who actually worked in a Y2K project knows that if the problem had been ignored then the consequences would have been disastrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522804</id>
	<title>Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>##. Twitter</p><p>Nothing else need be said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># # .
TwitterNothing else need be said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>##.
TwitterNothing else need be said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522602</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>larryhaney</author>
	<datestamp>1261489140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2000 to 2009 is the best for me.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Acnezine--Review---Does-the-Acnezine-Acne-Treatment-Work?&amp;id=2928024" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://ezinearticles.com/?Acnezine--Review---Does-the-Acnezine-Acne-Treatment-Work?&amp;id=2928024</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>2000 to 2009 is the best for me .
http : //ezinearticles.com/ ? Acnezine--Review---Does-the-Acnezine-Acne-Treatment-Work ? &amp;id = 2928024 [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2000 to 2009 is the best for me.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Acnezine--Review---Does-the-Acnezine-Acne-Treatment-Work?&amp;id=2928024 [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523342</id>
	<title>Re:#83 isn't lame, it's accurte.</title>
	<author>Alomex</author>
	<datestamp>1261495680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is like saying that Taco Bell is not a taco company because they buy their taco shells from a third party provider.</p><p>Really, think about it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like saying that Taco Bell is not a taco company because they buy their taco shells from a third party provider.Really , think about it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like saying that Taco Bell is not a taco company because they buy their taco shells from a third party provider.Really, think about it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526424</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261510380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, harrymcc. Only someone lame enough to make up a top 87 list of thigns would be lame enough to defend that comment.</p><p>You're an idiot, and so are the editors for linking to your page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , harrymcc .
Only someone lame enough to make up a top 87 list of thigns would be lame enough to defend that comment.You 're an idiot , and so are the editors for linking to your page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, harrymcc.
Only someone lame enough to make up a top 87 list of thigns would be lame enough to defend that comment.You're an idiot, and so are the editors for linking to your page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523440</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261496280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had an uncle working for MetLife in the early 90s; had he and his team not put in many months of work back then, the Y2K bug would have left millions of insurance claims unpayable, from business insurance to health plans.  On any given day, thousands upon thousands of insurance transactions are processed automatically by a computer, which would have rejected everything as invalid because the claim dates would have appeared to be before the policies were opened.<br> <br>

People who think Y2K was not a big deal were either children when the problem was solved or never really understood the problem to begin with.  Y2K38 is the next big date/time bug to deal with; many people here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. will probably wind up working on fixing the problem long before it causes catastrophes, and we will be pretty old on January 1, 2038.  I am also pretty sure that people like you will be saying, "There was never really a problem" for many years afterward, and someone like me will probably have to reply with a story about a relative who solved the problem before the press started running stories about the end of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an uncle working for MetLife in the early 90s ; had he and his team not put in many months of work back then , the Y2K bug would have left millions of insurance claims unpayable , from business insurance to health plans .
On any given day , thousands upon thousands of insurance transactions are processed automatically by a computer , which would have rejected everything as invalid because the claim dates would have appeared to be before the policies were opened .
People who think Y2K was not a big deal were either children when the problem was solved or never really understood the problem to begin with .
Y2K38 is the next big date/time bug to deal with ; many people here on / .
will probably wind up working on fixing the problem long before it causes catastrophes , and we will be pretty old on January 1 , 2038 .
I am also pretty sure that people like you will be saying , " There was never really a problem " for many years afterward , and someone like me will probably have to reply with a story about a relative who solved the problem before the press started running stories about the end of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an uncle working for MetLife in the early 90s; had he and his team not put in many months of work back then, the Y2K bug would have left millions of insurance claims unpayable, from business insurance to health plans.
On any given day, thousands upon thousands of insurance transactions are processed automatically by a computer, which would have rejected everything as invalid because the claim dates would have appeared to be before the policies were opened.
People who think Y2K was not a big deal were either children when the problem was solved or never really understood the problem to begin with.
Y2K38 is the next big date/time bug to deal with; many people here on /.
will probably wind up working on fixing the problem long before it causes catastrophes, and we will be pretty old on January 1, 2038.
I am also pretty sure that people like you will be saying, "There was never really a problem" for many years afterward, and someone like me will probably have to reply with a story about a relative who solved the problem before the press started running stories about the end of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522976</id>
	<title>Re:Y2K</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261493100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when you're using bare hardware types, ending at 2038, you're really using a second counter, which has a lot of uses aside from m/d/y. So there's a lot of implementation time saved having a single, simple, versatile time data structure.</p><p>Furthermore, it's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030, all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints, and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit, which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.</p><p>If your software needs to represent dates more than 10 years in the future, it might be a little sketchy, but it's still reasonable 32 bit might be out of your hair by 2020. Of course if you need to represent dates 30 years out, you need a better data structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when you 're using bare hardware types , ending at 2038 , you 're really using a second counter , which has a lot of uses aside from m/d/y .
So there 's a lot of implementation time saved having a single , simple , versatile time data structure.Furthermore , it 's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030 , all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints , and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit , which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.If your software needs to represent dates more than 10 years in the future , it might be a little sketchy , but it 's still reasonable 32 bit might be out of your hair by 2020 .
Of course if you need to represent dates 30 years out , you need a better data structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when you're using bare hardware types, ending at 2038, you're really using a second counter, which has a lot of uses aside from m/d/y.
So there's a lot of implementation time saved having a single, simple, versatile time data structure.Furthermore, it's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030, all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints, and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit, which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.If your software needs to represent dates more than 10 years in the future, it might be a little sketchy, but it's still reasonable 32 bit might be out of your hair by 2020.
Of course if you need to represent dates 30 years out, you need a better data structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525210</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1261504740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'The fifties' refers to all the years that start with 'fifty-'. 50, 51, 52, etc. It does not refer to the 196th decade, and really doesn't refer to decades at all. There just happen to be 10 numbers that start with 'fifty-'.</p><p>If you're referring to a 'new decade', people assume you're talking about a standard decade. If those decades started when yours did, then the first 'decade' would have had 9 years (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Not very 'deca', is it? So if you want your definition of a decade (10 years) to remain consistent with when you partition these decades, you have to start when the years start: year 1.</p><p>Your question at the end does nothing to prove your point. No, I do not consider 1960 to be in the 50s. But, 'the 50s' is not a decade. The 196th decade, which starts in 1951, does indeed include 1960.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The fifties ' refers to all the years that start with 'fifty-' .
50 , 51 , 52 , etc .
It does not refer to the 196th decade , and really does n't refer to decades at all .
There just happen to be 10 numbers that start with 'fifty-'.If you 're referring to a 'new decade ' , people assume you 're talking about a standard decade .
If those decades started when yours did , then the first 'decade ' would have had 9 years ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 ) .
Not very 'deca ' , is it ?
So if you want your definition of a decade ( 10 years ) to remain consistent with when you partition these decades , you have to start when the years start : year 1.Your question at the end does nothing to prove your point .
No , I do not consider 1960 to be in the 50s .
But , 'the 50s ' is not a decade .
The 196th decade , which starts in 1951 , does indeed include 1960 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The fifties' refers to all the years that start with 'fifty-'.
50, 51, 52, etc.
It does not refer to the 196th decade, and really doesn't refer to decades at all.
There just happen to be 10 numbers that start with 'fifty-'.If you're referring to a 'new decade', people assume you're talking about a standard decade.
If those decades started when yours did, then the first 'decade' would have had 9 years (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).
Not very 'deca', is it?
So if you want your definition of a decade (10 years) to remain consistent with when you partition these decades, you have to start when the years start: year 1.Your question at the end does nothing to prove your point.
No, I do not consider 1960 to be in the 50s.
But, 'the 50s' is not a decade.
The 196th decade, which starts in 1951, does indeed include 1960.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522854</id>
	<title>? multipage web articles without 1 page option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261492020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523502</id>
	<title>Re:Y2K</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1261496640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Furthermore, it's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030, all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints, and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit, which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.</i></p><p>Funny, all the people in the 60s and 70s who were using two-digit years thought exactly the same thing about the year 2000, and a lot of those systems were still around and still in production and had to be fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , it 's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030 , all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints , and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit , which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.Funny , all the people in the 60s and 70s who were using two-digit years thought exactly the same thing about the year 2000 , and a lot of those systems were still around and still in production and had to be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, it's a fairly safe assumption that by 2030, all computers still functioning will use 64 bit ints, and your code will have been recompiled and debugged for 64 bit, which will incidentally remove the 2038 issue.Funny, all the people in the 60s and 70s who were using two-digit years thought exactly the same thing about the year 2000, and a lot of those systems were still around and still in production and had to be fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522264</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1261484400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  Anyone who says the whole Y2K thing was hype is either an idiot, a n00b or both.  The author of TFA is quite possibly both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Anyone who says the whole Y2K thing was hype is either an idiot , a n00b or both .
The author of TFA is quite possibly both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Anyone who says the whole Y2K thing was hype is either an idiot, a n00b or both.
The author of TFA is quite possibly both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522890</id>
	<title>re #39,hard to pronounce names</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1261492260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
from the article:
39. Unpronounceable but catchy.
At the Consumer Electronics Show, Intel gets Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, and Danny DeVito to help it roll out Viiv, a new platform for media-savvy home PCs. Consumers have trouble figuring out what it is (and how to say it); PC vendors don&rsquo;t jump on the bandwagon with great abandon. By 2007, the press is referring to it in the past tense.

I've long suspected that unpronounceable names (merkur from ford) are really bad for a product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the article : 39 .
Unpronounceable but catchy .
At the Consumer Electronics Show , Intel gets Tom Hanks , Morgan Freeman , and Danny DeVito to help it roll out Viiv , a new platform for media-savvy home PCs .
Consumers have trouble figuring out what it is ( and how to say it ) ; PC vendors don    t jump on the bandwagon with great abandon .
By 2007 , the press is referring to it in the past tense .
I 've long suspected that unpronounceable names ( merkur from ford ) are really bad for a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
from the article:
39.
Unpronounceable but catchy.
At the Consumer Electronics Show, Intel gets Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, and Danny DeVito to help it roll out Viiv, a new platform for media-savvy home PCs.
Consumers have trouble figuring out what it is (and how to say it); PC vendors don’t jump on the bandwagon with great abandon.
By 2007, the press is referring to it in the past tense.
I've long suspected that unpronounceable names (merkur from ford) are really bad for a product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30531202</id>
	<title>They forgot an ad for the iPhone</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1261487400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ad was banned later:<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-10108679-37.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-10108679-37.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>Link for the video (compared with reality):<br><a href="http://blog.websourcing.fr/wp-content/plugins/embedded-video-with-link/mediaplayer/player.swf?file=http://movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow\_DI\_New\_4x3\_001.flv" title="websourcing.fr">http://blog.websourcing.fr/wp-content/plugins/embedded-video-with-link/mediaplayer/player.swf?file=http://movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow\_DI\_New\_4x3\_001.flv</a> [websourcing.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ad was banned later : http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13579 \ _3-10108679-37.html [ cnet.com ] Link for the video ( compared with reality ) : http : //blog.websourcing.fr/wp-content/plugins/embedded-video-with-link/mediaplayer/player.swf ? file = http : //movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow \ _DI \ _New \ _4x3 \ _001.flv [ websourcing.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ad was banned later:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-10108679-37.html [cnet.com]Link for the video (compared with reality):http://blog.websourcing.fr/wp-content/plugins/embedded-video-with-link/mediaplayer/player.swf?file=http://movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow\_DI\_New\_4x3\_001.flv [websourcing.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522380</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>crivens</author>
	<datestamp>1261486740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe you just posted the singularily most intelligent and correct response on Slashdot. Congratulations!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you just posted the singularily most intelligent and correct response on Slashdot .
Congratulations !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you just posted the singularily most intelligent and correct response on Slashdot.
Congratulations!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30533094</id>
	<title>Re:The Segway doesn't deserve being on this list</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1261510260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I like the Segway, I do think it was way over-hyped. Sure, it has its uses. But not enough to push the bike out of its place. And once you have the infrastructure in place to make Segways more viable, you've pretty much improved the bike's already dominant place, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I like the Segway , I do think it was way over-hyped .
Sure , it has its uses .
But not enough to push the bike out of its place .
And once you have the infrastructure in place to make Segways more viable , you 've pretty much improved the bike 's already dominant place , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I like the Segway, I do think it was way over-hyped.
Sure, it has its uses.
But not enough to push the bike out of its place.
And once you have the infrastructure in place to make Segways more viable, you've pretty much improved the bike's already dominant place, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522830</id>
	<title>Persecution troll feels persecuted.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261491840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As of this posting, I count two posts being critical of apple; and one is a reply to you. Which means that when <em>you</em> posted this, there was anywhere between 0 and 1 post being critical of apple.  Mod parent troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of this posting , I count two posts being critical of apple ; and one is a reply to you .
Which means that when you posted this , there was anywhere between 0 and 1 post being critical of apple .
Mod parent troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of this posting, I count two posts being critical of apple; and one is a reply to you.
Which means that when you posted this, there was anywhere between 0 and 1 post being critical of apple.
Mod parent troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525440</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1261506060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't bought a sony product since.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't bought a sony product since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't bought a sony product since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522358</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1261486380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the xbox had a failure rate of between 3\% and 5\% in line with industry norms (MS claim). while it's not a stellar performace it's nothing special. typically when you dig into the claims of 50\% failure rates, they are either online polls or of limited sample size (in other words fucking worthless).</htmltext>
<tokenext>the xbox had a failure rate of between 3 \ % and 5 \ % in line with industry norms ( MS claim ) .
while it 's not a stellar performace it 's nothing special .
typically when you dig into the claims of 50 \ % failure rates , they are either online polls or of limited sample size ( in other words fucking worthless ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the xbox had a failure rate of between 3\% and 5\% in line with industry norms (MS claim).
while it's not a stellar performace it's nothing special.
typically when you dig into the claims of 50\% failure rates, they are either online polls or of limited sample size (in other words fucking worthless).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524054</id>
	<title>"Developers, developers"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ballmer's "developers" wasn't dumb. It was embarrassing, or should have been if he has any shame, but the point was spot on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballmer 's " developers " was n't dumb .
It was embarrassing , or should have been if he has any shame , but the point was spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballmer's "developers" wasn't dumb.
It was embarrassing, or should have been if he has any shame, but the point was spot on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522648</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1261489740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"You should use my dandruff shampoo."<br> <br>
"But you don't have dandruff."<br> <br>
"Exactly."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You should use my dandruff shampoo .
" " But you do n't have dandruff .
" " Exactly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You should use my dandruff shampoo.
" 
"But you don't have dandruff.
" 
"Exactly.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523730</id>
	<title>Re:Y2K</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1261497780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000. Cost quite a number of man hours.</p></div><p>Well I had to fix a popular "Make a stupid things lists" applications, and frankly, in retrospect, I wonder why I even bothered. I should have gotten out, gotten drunk and have been sick all over the shoes of some nice girl. But no, I had to fix this stupid piece of code. I wish I hadn't.</p><p>Then this typical "end of year" fluff would have been posted way back in 99 and the author would have been hacked to death by Visigoths and Romans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000 .
Cost quite a number of man hours.Well I had to fix a popular " Make a stupid things lists " applications , and frankly , in retrospect , I wonder why I even bothered .
I should have gotten out , gotten drunk and have been sick all over the shoes of some nice girl .
But no , I had to fix this stupid piece of code .
I wish I had n't.Then this typical " end of year " fluff would have been posted way back in 99 and the author would have been hacked to death by Visigoths and Romans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000.
Cost quite a number of man hours.Well I had to fix a popular "Make a stupid things lists" applications, and frankly, in retrospect, I wonder why I even bothered.
I should have gotten out, gotten drunk and have been sick all over the shoes of some nice girl.
But no, I had to fix this stupid piece of code.
I wish I hadn't.Then this typical "end of year" fluff would have been posted way back in 99 and the author would have been hacked to death by Visigoths and Romans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522588</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1261489020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9. Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?</p><blockquote><div><p>The controversy stems from the fact that there was no year 0.  The julian/gregorian calendar retroactively goes back to year 1 AD, and before that is 1 BC.</p><p>Human lifes on the other hand start at year 0.</p><p>So people who say the decade was from Jan 1 2001- Dec 31 2010 are technically correct although you can just say a decade is a 10 year period and arbitrarily start it whenever.</p><p>But since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is full of programmers that have experience with arrays, especially in C type languages - none of this should be news or that hard to grasp.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh... no , decade goes from x0-x9 .
Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s ? The controversy stems from the fact that there was no year 0 .
The julian/gregorian calendar retroactively goes back to year 1 AD , and before that is 1 BC.Human lifes on the other hand start at year 0.So people who say the decade was from Jan 1 2001- Dec 31 2010 are technically correct although you can just say a decade is a 10 year period and arbitrarily start it whenever.But since / .
is full of programmers that have experience with arrays , especially in C type languages - none of this should be news or that hard to grasp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9.
Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?The controversy stems from the fact that there was no year 0.
The julian/gregorian calendar retroactively goes back to year 1 AD, and before that is 1 BC.Human lifes on the other hand start at year 0.So people who say the decade was from Jan 1 2001- Dec 31 2010 are technically correct although you can just say a decade is a 10 year period and arbitrarily start it whenever.But since /.
is full of programmers that have experience with arrays, especially in C type languages - none of this should be news or that hard to grasp.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370</id>
	<title>I see a lot of Apple hate...</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1261486560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...among the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments. Despite Apple's blunders in this list being few and not really noteworthy, it naturally does not discourage the "grannies of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/." to leap out from under their stones with their tag-sticks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...among the / .
comments. Despite Apple 's blunders in this list being few and not really noteworthy , it naturally does not discourage the " grannies of / .
" to leap out from under their stones with their tag-sticks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...among the /.
comments. Despite Apple's blunders in this list being few and not really noteworthy, it naturally does not discourage the "grannies of /.
" to leap out from under their stones with their tag-sticks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>El Lobo</author>
	<datestamp>1261487880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And despite the HUGE problems with Abble's Snow Leopard, with it's infinites beach balls of death, deleting whole accounts when logging in as a guest, uncountable bugs and slowness, it doesn't make this list. But, let Microsoft release a decent OS like XP with a animated dog on it. Oh! That's enough for it to be included...  Gotta show you how prejudiced these kind of lists are...  Who made this list? Kdawson?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And despite the HUGE problems with Abble 's Snow Leopard , with it 's infinites beach balls of death , deleting whole accounts when logging in as a guest , uncountable bugs and slowness , it does n't make this list .
But , let Microsoft release a decent OS like XP with a animated dog on it .
Oh ! That 's enough for it to be included... Got ta show you how prejudiced these kind of lists are... Who made this list ?
Kdawson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And despite the HUGE problems with Abble's Snow Leopard, with it's infinites beach balls of death, deleting whole accounts when logging in as a guest, uncountable bugs and slowness, it doesn't make this list.
But, let Microsoft release a decent OS like XP with a animated dog on it.
Oh! That's enough for it to be included...  Gotta show you how prejudiced these kind of lists are...  Who made this list?
Kdawson?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523340</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1261495680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What this chapter completely misses is that the emergency spending on Y2K fixes was just the tail end of a long effort of companies updating their software.  Journalists were not talking about the Y2K bug in 1991, but plenty of programmers were already aware of it and already working on solutions to the problem.  By the time the story got interesting -- as the year 2000 approached -- the problem had been mostly solved without any prodding from the media or pushing from the president.  This whole situation was compounded by the fact that most people, including the journalists covering the story, had no understanding of how computers stored dates, and the fact that companies whose products had nothing to do with the Y2K bug were advertising their software as "Y2K compliant," and everyone wound up thinking that there was impending doom.<br> <br>

For the record, the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems, many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier, but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this chapter completely misses is that the emergency spending on Y2K fixes was just the tail end of a long effort of companies updating their software .
Journalists were not talking about the Y2K bug in 1991 , but plenty of programmers were already aware of it and already working on solutions to the problem .
By the time the story got interesting -- as the year 2000 approached -- the problem had been mostly solved without any prodding from the media or pushing from the president .
This whole situation was compounded by the fact that most people , including the journalists covering the story , had no understanding of how computers stored dates , and the fact that companies whose products had nothing to do with the Y2K bug were advertising their software as " Y2K compliant , " and everyone wound up thinking that there was impending doom .
For the record , the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems , many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier , but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this chapter completely misses is that the emergency spending on Y2K fixes was just the tail end of a long effort of companies updating their software.
Journalists were not talking about the Y2K bug in 1991, but plenty of programmers were already aware of it and already working on solutions to the problem.
By the time the story got interesting -- as the year 2000 approached -- the problem had been mostly solved without any prodding from the media or pushing from the president.
This whole situation was compounded by the fact that most people, including the journalists covering the story, had no understanding of how computers stored dates, and the fact that companies whose products had nothing to do with the Y2K bug were advertising their software as "Y2K compliant," and everyone wound up thinking that there was impending doom.
For the record, the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems, many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier, but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522482</id>
	<title>Re:The very lamest moment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261488060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck you!</p><p>Damn I was late!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck you ! Damn I was late ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck you!Damn I was late!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523476</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>kaychoro</author>
	<datestamp>1261496520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah the memories... A friend of mine shut off the circuit breaker at her parents&rsquo; house as the clock struck Midnight.  Not a bug, but an excellent chance for a practical joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah the memories... A friend of mine shut off the circuit breaker at her parents    house as the clock struck Midnight .
Not a bug , but an excellent chance for a practical joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah the memories... A friend of mine shut off the circuit breaker at her parents’ house as the clock struck Midnight.
Not a bug, but an excellent chance for a practical joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522974</id>
	<title>Re:The very lamest moment?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261493100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the lamest tech thing in the last decade was the article itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the lamest tech thing in the last decade was the article itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the lamest tech thing in the last decade was the article itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522308</id>
	<title>The 88th entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261485300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasting time reading this lame list</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wasting time reading this lame list</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasting time reading this lame list</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523398</id>
	<title>Re:KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1261495980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. An while we're at it: OS X 10.0, back in 2001. Just because I feel that whenever people whine about KDE 4.0, they should be reminded that OS X 10.0 was pretty close to unusable, that OS X 10.1 was still shit and that OS X 10.2 was only somewhat promising.</p><p>Some guy in a comment above reminded me that there wasn't nearly enough Apple hate here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
An while we 're at it : OS X 10.0 , back in 2001 .
Just because I feel that whenever people whine about KDE 4.0 , they should be reminded that OS X 10.0 was pretty close to unusable , that OS X 10.1 was still shit and that OS X 10.2 was only somewhat promising.Some guy in a comment above reminded me that there was n't nearly enough Apple hate here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
An while we're at it: OS X 10.0, back in 2001.
Just because I feel that whenever people whine about KDE 4.0, they should be reminded that OS X 10.0 was pretty close to unusable, that OS X 10.1 was still shit and that OS X 10.2 was only somewhat promising.Some guy in a comment above reminded me that there wasn't nearly enough Apple hate here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456</id>
	<title>#83 isn't lame, it's accurte.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261487820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>83. And Taco Bell was never a taco company.<br>In an interview with the New York Times conducted in the wake of Yahoo&rsquo;s decision to outsource its search features to Microsoft, Yahoo boss Carol Bartz says that Yahoo has &ldquo;never been a search company.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote><p>Carol Bartz is correct--Yahoo started out as a link collection, then a hierarchical directory (basically like <a href="http://www.dmoz.org/" title="dmoz.org">http://www.dmoz.org/</a> [dmoz.org] then added a lot of portal services (including email, stock quotes, etc).</p><p>The thing that they never had, until 2004, was a search engine; Yahoo put other company's searches on their site (including Inktomi for a while, and then Google up until 2004).  Doing that with Bing is just returning to what they've done historically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : 83 .
And Taco Bell was never a taco company.In an interview with the New York Times conducted in the wake of Yahoo    s decision to outsource its search features to Microsoft , Yahoo boss Carol Bartz says that Yahoo has    never been a search company.    Carol Bartz is correct--Yahoo started out as a link collection , then a hierarchical directory ( basically like http : //www.dmoz.org/ [ dmoz.org ] then added a lot of portal services ( including email , stock quotes , etc ) .The thing that they never had , until 2004 , was a search engine ; Yahoo put other company 's searches on their site ( including Inktomi for a while , and then Google up until 2004 ) .
Doing that with Bing is just returning to what they 've done historically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:83.
And Taco Bell was never a taco company.In an interview with the New York Times conducted in the wake of Yahoo’s decision to outsource its search features to Microsoft, Yahoo boss Carol Bartz says that Yahoo has “never been a search company.”Carol Bartz is correct--Yahoo started out as a link collection, then a hierarchical directory (basically like http://www.dmoz.org/ [dmoz.org] then added a lot of portal services (including email, stock quotes, etc).The thing that they never had, until 2004, was a search engine; Yahoo put other company's searches on their site (including Inktomi for a while, and then Google up until 2004).
Doing that with Bing is just returning to what they've done historically.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524052</id>
	<title>Pentagon "airplane" crash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the most stupid item of the decade is  America collectively buying the story that a Boeing 757 just vaporised upon striking the Pentagon on 9/11, and that there weren't any cc cameras anywhere that managed to take a single clear photo of it passing through.<br>Oh, that's right, America is STILL stupidly swallowing that bullshit. What happened to you folk in 2001? A collective lobotomy? I'd go on about WTC7 and other "odd" inconsistencies with reality, but I've already demonstrated my eligibility for tinfoil-hat trollish redundancy, so it's not really worth the bother, is it?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Personally, I'd give Stupid Moment #1 to the Nobel Prize committee awarding the "Peace" prize to Capn YesIcanistan Obama - in one foul swoop, completely eliminating any credibility they might have had left. "Peace" = more death for Afghani civilians, and continuing to encourage the Zionists to march on with their genocidal extermination of the unfortunate former residents of Greater Palestine, may she rest in peace. So, I'm a troll, am I? Just tell me what's NOT stupid about my chosen topics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most stupid item of the decade is America collectively buying the story that a Boeing 757 just vaporised upon striking the Pentagon on 9/11 , and that there were n't any cc cameras anywhere that managed to take a single clear photo of it passing through.Oh , that 's right , America is STILL stupidly swallowing that bullshit .
What happened to you folk in 2001 ?
A collective lobotomy ?
I 'd go on about WTC7 and other " odd " inconsistencies with reality , but I 've already demonstrated my eligibility for tinfoil-hat trollish redundancy , so it 's not really worth the bother , is it ?
  Personally , I 'd give Stupid Moment # 1 to the Nobel Prize committee awarding the " Peace " prize to Capn YesIcanistan Obama - in one foul swoop , completely eliminating any credibility they might have had left .
" Peace " = more death for Afghani civilians , and continuing to encourage the Zionists to march on with their genocidal extermination of the unfortunate former residents of Greater Palestine , may she rest in peace .
So , I 'm a troll , am I ?
Just tell me what 's NOT stupid about my chosen topics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most stupid item of the decade is  America collectively buying the story that a Boeing 757 just vaporised upon striking the Pentagon on 9/11, and that there weren't any cc cameras anywhere that managed to take a single clear photo of it passing through.Oh, that's right, America is STILL stupidly swallowing that bullshit.
What happened to you folk in 2001?
A collective lobotomy?
I'd go on about WTC7 and other "odd" inconsistencies with reality, but I've already demonstrated my eligibility for tinfoil-hat trollish redundancy, so it's not really worth the bother, is it?
  Personally, I'd give Stupid Moment #1 to the Nobel Prize committee awarding the "Peace" prize to Capn YesIcanistan Obama - in one foul swoop, completely eliminating any credibility they might have had left.
"Peace" = more death for Afghani civilians, and continuing to encourage the Zionists to march on with their genocidal extermination of the unfortunate former residents of Greater Palestine, may she rest in peace.
So, I'm a troll, am I?
Just tell me what's NOT stupid about my chosen topics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522646</id>
	<title>Re:Y2K</title>
	<author>EvilTwinSkippy</author>
	<datestamp>1261489740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heck, I worked at a museum that ended up spending 6 figures to wholesale replace their IBM System 36 accounting system with an AS/400. (Including having developers completely rewrite the RPG code...)<br><br>In 2001 we had several companies that wanted to donate System 36's to be museum displays. We ended up telling them that we already had 2 of our own!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I worked at a museum that ended up spending 6 figures to wholesale replace their IBM System 36 accounting system with an AS/400 .
( Including having developers completely rewrite the RPG code... ) In 2001 we had several companies that wanted to donate System 36 's to be museum displays .
We ended up telling them that we already had 2 of our own !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I worked at a museum that ended up spending 6 figures to wholesale replace their IBM System 36 accounting system with an AS/400.
(Including having developers completely rewrite the RPG code...)In 2001 we had several companies that wanted to donate System 36's to be museum displays.
We ended up telling them that we already had 2 of our own!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528326</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>lowrydr310</author>
	<datestamp>1261473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember the best example of a Y2K bug that I've seen was the arrival/departure screen at my local airport. JANUARY 1, 19100</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the best example of a Y2K bug that I 've seen was the arrival/departure screen at my local airport .
JANUARY 1 , 19100</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the best example of a Y2K bug that I've seen was the arrival/departure screen at my local airport.
JANUARY 1, 19100</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523120</id>
	<title>Mail Googles</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1261494300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with this? I don't understand why it's on the list. I think it's great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with this ?
I do n't understand why it 's on the list .
I think it 's great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with this?
I don't understand why it's on the list.
I think it's great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523064</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1261493880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - I spent a year running a Y2K lab, constantly running through key dates so that programmers could test code. Stuff broke - stuff broke UGLY. It took months to get most of it working properly, and if the systems I was testing had broken?<br>People would have noticed. People would have sued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - I spent a year running a Y2K lab , constantly running through key dates so that programmers could test code .
Stuff broke - stuff broke UGLY .
It took months to get most of it working properly , and if the systems I was testing had broken ? People would have noticed .
People would have sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - I spent a year running a Y2K lab, constantly running through key dates so that programmers could test code.
Stuff broke - stuff broke UGLY.
It took months to get most of it working properly, and if the systems I was testing had broken?People would have noticed.
People would have sued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523742</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261497900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?</p></div><p>These decades go to 11.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0 , and the second decade was from 1 to 10 ? These decades go to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?These decades go to 11.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174</id>
	<title>The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>pecosdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261482840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 360 for its inexcusable failure rate, then in the wake of Microsofts competitors constantly revising their models and offering updates Microsoft declares they will not create a version two or revise their hardware.</p><p>Then - while XBox 360's were new and failing in droves, Microsoft not only decides the old model will no longer be supported with new products they recall as much existing stock of the old model as they can and do their best to make it got away.  Sort of like they wanted to do with XP when Vista came out.</p><p>Something all the game consoles need:<br>Older laptop style optical drives that can be changed by release a lever.  Can anyone say failure rate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 360 for its inexcusable failure rate , then in the wake of Microsofts competitors constantly revising their models and offering updates Microsoft declares they will not create a version two or revise their hardware.Then - while XBox 360 's were new and failing in droves , Microsoft not only decides the old model will no longer be supported with new products they recall as much existing stock of the old model as they can and do their best to make it got away .
Sort of like they wanted to do with XP when Vista came out.Something all the game consoles need : Older laptop style optical drives that can be changed by release a lever .
Can anyone say failure rate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 360 for its inexcusable failure rate, then in the wake of Microsofts competitors constantly revising their models and offering updates Microsoft declares they will not create a version two or revise their hardware.Then - while XBox 360's were new and failing in droves, Microsoft not only decides the old model will no longer be supported with new products they recall as much existing stock of the old model as they can and do their best to make it got away.
Sort of like they wanted to do with XP when Vista came out.Something all the game consoles need:Older laptop style optical drives that can be changed by release a lever.
Can anyone say failure rate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522290</id>
	<title>Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261485060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers.</p></div></blockquote><p>That was 14 right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers , developers.That was 14 right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers.That was 14 right there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1261491420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that?</p><p>I've found it to be pretty good so far, on both my Mac and my wife's.</p><p>I've not heard of this other stuff. It sounds a little made-up, or at least cherry-picked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that ? I 've found it to be pretty good so far , on both my Mac and my wife 's.I 've not heard of this other stuff .
It sounds a little made-up , or at least cherry-picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that?I've found it to be pretty good so far, on both my Mac and my wife's.I've not heard of this other stuff.
It sounds a little made-up, or at least cherry-picked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525450</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1261506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assorted vintage?  Snow Leopard only works on Intel based macs, which are all relatively new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assorted vintage ?
Snow Leopard only works on Intel based macs , which are all relatively new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assorted vintage?
Snow Leopard only works on Intel based macs, which are all relatively new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136</id>
	<title>The very lamest moment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261482300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't that be the "first post" ??<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't that be the " first post " ? ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't that be the "first post" ??
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524104</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My team and I worked our ASSES off to make sure everything worked, including an old payroll system that wasn't Y2K ready. Anyone who got paid for the last two weeks of December 1999 and thinks Y2K was "hype" can suck my....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My team and I worked our ASSES off to make sure everything worked , including an old payroll system that was n't Y2K ready .
Anyone who got paid for the last two weeks of December 1999 and thinks Y2K was " hype " can suck my... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My team and I worked our ASSES off to make sure everything worked, including an old payroll system that wasn't Y2K ready.
Anyone who got paid for the last two weeks of December 1999 and thinks Y2K was "hype" can suck my....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523994</id>
	<title>Re:sony rootkit</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1261499280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, what?</p><p>I have rolled out Snow Leopard on multiple machines of assorted vintage and consider myself well-versed in Apple tech support issues and I've not even heard a whisper of the issues you have mentioned.</p><p>Although "uncountable bugs and slowness" is a little bit catch all - care to list some of the "uncountable bugs" - you only need to rattle off, say 5. If there really are that many. It should be easy.</p><p>I have not heard of the user account deletion on guest login - are you sure you didn't mess with UIDs?</p><p>Snow Leopard has been excellent. I had some minor issues with it and Safari until Flashblock came out, and I have to update some of my migrated apps that were installed under 10.5 and weren't touched during the move to 10.6 (I can't remember if it was an A+I or an upgrade) - this was usually little things like my ToDo list sync app and some menu bar widgets and so on, but reinstalling fixed those right away.</p><p>I think your sig gives away your bias - it seems you think a list that doesn't agree with you is "prejudiced" because it doesn't savage Apple for made up tech problems with Snow Leopard.</p><p>There's plenty of *actual* Apple content you could go after them for without having to make shit up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , what ? I have rolled out Snow Leopard on multiple machines of assorted vintage and consider myself well-versed in Apple tech support issues and I 've not even heard a whisper of the issues you have mentioned.Although " uncountable bugs and slowness " is a little bit catch all - care to list some of the " uncountable bugs " - you only need to rattle off , say 5 .
If there really are that many .
It should be easy.I have not heard of the user account deletion on guest login - are you sure you did n't mess with UIDs ? Snow Leopard has been excellent .
I had some minor issues with it and Safari until Flashblock came out , and I have to update some of my migrated apps that were installed under 10.5 and were n't touched during the move to 10.6 ( I ca n't remember if it was an A + I or an upgrade ) - this was usually little things like my ToDo list sync app and some menu bar widgets and so on , but reinstalling fixed those right away.I think your sig gives away your bias - it seems you think a list that does n't agree with you is " prejudiced " because it does n't savage Apple for made up tech problems with Snow Leopard.There 's plenty of * actual * Apple content you could go after them for without having to make shit up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, what?I have rolled out Snow Leopard on multiple machines of assorted vintage and consider myself well-versed in Apple tech support issues and I've not even heard a whisper of the issues you have mentioned.Although "uncountable bugs and slowness" is a little bit catch all - care to list some of the "uncountable bugs" - you only need to rattle off, say 5.
If there really are that many.
It should be easy.I have not heard of the user account deletion on guest login - are you sure you didn't mess with UIDs?Snow Leopard has been excellent.
I had some minor issues with it and Safari until Flashblock came out, and I have to update some of my migrated apps that were installed under 10.5 and weren't touched during the move to 10.6 (I can't remember if it was an A+I or an upgrade) - this was usually little things like my ToDo list sync app and some menu bar widgets and so on, but reinstalling fixed those right away.I think your sig gives away your bias - it seems you think a list that doesn't agree with you is "prejudiced" because it doesn't savage Apple for made up tech problems with Snow Leopard.There's plenty of *actual* Apple content you could go after them for without having to make shit up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30534076</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?</p></div></blockquote><p>No decade counting starts over at each century, have you ever heard of the 200th decade? No, it because decades are not counted from year 1 like centuries and millineas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0 , and the second decade was from 1 to 10 ? No decade counting starts over at each century , have you ever heard of the 200th decade ?
No , it because decades are not counted from year 1 like centuries and millineas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?No decade counting starts over at each century, have you ever heard of the 200th decade?
No, it because decades are not counted from year 1 like centuries and millineas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522284</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261484940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>technically a decade is any ten year period, doesn't matter when it starts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>technically a decade is any ten year period , does n't matter when it starts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>technically a decade is any ten year period, doesn't matter when it starts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152</id>
	<title>Re:The XBox's need more coverage.</title>
	<author>RogueyWon</author>
	<datestamp>1261494480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video gaming in general could have used more prominence in TFA. After all, it's undoubtedly a part of the tech sector. Thinking of 10 examples off the top of my head, in no particular order...</p><p>- The Red Ring of Death: as you say, should absolutely have been in there. Cost-cutting decisions lead to major customer frustrations. The issue is then compounded by lies, obfuscation and, once the problem is acknowledged, a massively slow response.</p><p>- The Gamecube: everything about it. A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.</p><p>- Hot Coffee: the video game industry unintentionally playing right into the hands of the "think of the children" brigade. While there's an absolutely legitimate battle to be fought against censorship of video-games, this was a huge tactical mis-step.</p><p>- The Sixaxis controller: rather than going for the obvious solution of competing with the Wii by having more and better games (which would hardly be difficult), Sony decided to rush some desperately inadequate motion sensing tech into the PS3's controller. When it was announced, everybody assumed it would be a nasty hack. When the PS3 was launched, everybody could see it really was a nasty hack. Fortunately, most PS3 developers now ignore it.</p><p>- The original Xbox360 controller: just... what? I'd love to know who decided this was a good idea. Microsoft actually issued a better, second-generation controller pretty quickly. But not before they'd become a laughing stock.</p><p>- Spore: the hype, the underwhelming game, the hideously broken DRM, the Amazon review campaign. Never has a game promised so much and delivered so little.</p><p>- Nintendo's online strategy: yeah, still waiting on this one... maybe they have one... somewhere...</p><p>- The PSP Go: Sony put out a revision of their middlingly-successful handheld whose only claim to fame is that it has less functionality than the original version. And then they wonder why it doesn't take off...</p><p>- The DSi: Nintendo demonstrate that they have the ethics of a rabid pitbull by putting out the first handheld for many years to incorporate region locking.</p><p>- The Phantom: ok, I know that some of the events surrounding Infinium Labs are touched upon briefly in TFA, but I think the Phantom should have taken pride of place in the line-up of tech-fiascos over the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video gaming in general could have used more prominence in TFA .
After all , it 's undoubtedly a part of the tech sector .
Thinking of 10 examples off the top of my head , in no particular order...- The Red Ring of Death : as you say , should absolutely have been in there .
Cost-cutting decisions lead to major customer frustrations .
The issue is then compounded by lies , obfuscation and , once the problem is acknowledged , a massively slow response.- The Gamecube : everything about it .
A nasty , tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.- Hot Coffee : the video game industry unintentionally playing right into the hands of the " think of the children " brigade .
While there 's an absolutely legitimate battle to be fought against censorship of video-games , this was a huge tactical mis-step.- The Sixaxis controller : rather than going for the obvious solution of competing with the Wii by having more and better games ( which would hardly be difficult ) , Sony decided to rush some desperately inadequate motion sensing tech into the PS3 's controller .
When it was announced , everybody assumed it would be a nasty hack .
When the PS3 was launched , everybody could see it really was a nasty hack .
Fortunately , most PS3 developers now ignore it.- The original Xbox360 controller : just... what ? I 'd love to know who decided this was a good idea .
Microsoft actually issued a better , second-generation controller pretty quickly .
But not before they 'd become a laughing stock.- Spore : the hype , the underwhelming game , the hideously broken DRM , the Amazon review campaign .
Never has a game promised so much and delivered so little.- Nintendo 's online strategy : yeah , still waiting on this one... maybe they have one... somewhere...- The PSP Go : Sony put out a revision of their middlingly-successful handheld whose only claim to fame is that it has less functionality than the original version .
And then they wonder why it does n't take off...- The DSi : Nintendo demonstrate that they have the ethics of a rabid pitbull by putting out the first handheld for many years to incorporate region locking.- The Phantom : ok , I know that some of the events surrounding Infinium Labs are touched upon briefly in TFA , but I think the Phantom should have taken pride of place in the line-up of tech-fiascos over the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video gaming in general could have used more prominence in TFA.
After all, it's undoubtedly a part of the tech sector.
Thinking of 10 examples off the top of my head, in no particular order...- The Red Ring of Death: as you say, should absolutely have been in there.
Cost-cutting decisions lead to major customer frustrations.
The issue is then compounded by lies, obfuscation and, once the problem is acknowledged, a massively slow response.- The Gamecube: everything about it.
A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.- Hot Coffee: the video game industry unintentionally playing right into the hands of the "think of the children" brigade.
While there's an absolutely legitimate battle to be fought against censorship of video-games, this was a huge tactical mis-step.- The Sixaxis controller: rather than going for the obvious solution of competing with the Wii by having more and better games (which would hardly be difficult), Sony decided to rush some desperately inadequate motion sensing tech into the PS3's controller.
When it was announced, everybody assumed it would be a nasty hack.
When the PS3 was launched, everybody could see it really was a nasty hack.
Fortunately, most PS3 developers now ignore it.- The original Xbox360 controller: just... what? I'd love to know who decided this was a good idea.
Microsoft actually issued a better, second-generation controller pretty quickly.
But not before they'd become a laughing stock.- Spore: the hype, the underwhelming game, the hideously broken DRM, the Amazon review campaign.
Never has a game promised so much and delivered so little.- Nintendo's online strategy: yeah, still waiting on this one... maybe they have one... somewhere...- The PSP Go: Sony put out a revision of their middlingly-successful handheld whose only claim to fame is that it has less functionality than the original version.
And then they wonder why it doesn't take off...- The DSi: Nintendo demonstrate that they have the ethics of a rabid pitbull by putting out the first handheld for many years to incorporate region locking.- The Phantom: ok, I know that some of the events surrounding Infinium Labs are touched upon briefly in TFA, but I think the Phantom should have taken pride of place in the line-up of tech-fiascos over the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523386</id>
	<title>Re:First Paragraph</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1261495980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: <a href="http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world" title="flatearthnews.net">http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world</a> [flatearthnews.net].</p></div><p>Not to mention that a number of (so called) journalists called it the "millennium bug" at the time instead of using the more proper "Y2K" or "date rollover" or "insert your favourite proper name here". Maybe "early millennium bug" ?</p><p>Of course, we're all familiar with the way the general press distorts anything that's marginally technical. But then it has happened several times that I was at the front line of several economic (Euro) headline worthy stories (I wasn't one of the actors, I just had access to all the data). And there too, the reporting was invariably terribly distorted at best, completely wrong in most cases.</p><p>Nowadays, I regrettably have to consider the press (broadly speaking, rolling all media under one name) as a "source of information" of sorts because I know it's what most people will use. But I never consider it as actual information. Merely as heavily distorted data that may, or may not, have anything to do with whatever actually happened. But numerous people will base their decisions on this which makes it somewhat important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it 's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy : http : //www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world [ flatearthnews.net ] .Not to mention that a number of ( so called ) journalists called it the " millennium bug " at the time instead of using the more proper " Y2K " or " date rollover " or " insert your favourite proper name here " .
Maybe " early millennium bug " ? Of course , we 're all familiar with the way the general press distorts anything that 's marginally technical .
But then it has happened several times that I was at the front line of several economic ( Euro ) headline worthy stories ( I was n't one of the actors , I just had access to all the data ) .
And there too , the reporting was invariably terribly distorted at best , completely wrong in most cases.Nowadays , I regrettably have to consider the press ( broadly speaking , rolling all media under one name ) as a " source of information " of sorts because I know it 's what most people will use .
But I never consider it as actual information .
Merely as heavily distorted data that may , or may not , have anything to do with whatever actually happened .
But numerous people will base their decisions on this which makes it somewhat important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world [flatearthnews.net].Not to mention that a number of (so called) journalists called it the "millennium bug" at the time instead of using the more proper "Y2K" or "date rollover" or "insert your favourite proper name here".
Maybe "early millennium bug" ?Of course, we're all familiar with the way the general press distorts anything that's marginally technical.
But then it has happened several times that I was at the front line of several economic (Euro) headline worthy stories (I wasn't one of the actors, I just had access to all the data).
And there too, the reporting was invariably terribly distorted at best, completely wrong in most cases.Nowadays, I regrettably have to consider the press (broadly speaking, rolling all media under one name) as a "source of information" of sorts because I know it's what most people will use.
But I never consider it as actual information.
Merely as heavily distorted data that may, or may not, have anything to do with whatever actually happened.
But numerous people will base their decisions on this which makes it somewhat important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524284</id>
	<title>87 is the magical number.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261500540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, Harry McCracken must be an <a href="http://www.ar15.com/" title="ar15.com" rel="nofollow"> ARFCOM'er. I wonder what his screen name there is.</a> [ar15.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , Harry McCracken must be an ARFCOM'er .
I wonder what his screen name there is .
[ ar15.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, Harry McCracken must be an  ARFCOM'er.
I wonder what his screen name there is.
[ar15.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332</id>
	<title>Re:obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261485660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>decade = 2001-2010</i> <br>
<br>
Well, I choose to define 'decade' as 1997-2006, so the decade's been over for a while. As was already pointed out, a decade is any arbitrary span of ten years. As was also pointed out, when people refer to certain decades of years (the 50s, the 70s, the 90s, etc), they're commonly referring to the first year of that decade (1950, 1970, 1990) to the last year of that decade (1959, 1979, 1999). Or do you consider 1960 to be part of the 50s?</htmltext>
<tokenext>decade = 2001-2010 Well , I choose to define 'decade ' as 1997-2006 , so the decade 's been over for a while .
As was already pointed out , a decade is any arbitrary span of ten years .
As was also pointed out , when people refer to certain decades of years ( the 50s , the 70s , the 90s , etc ) , they 're commonly referring to the first year of that decade ( 1950 , 1970 , 1990 ) to the last year of that decade ( 1959 , 1979 , 1999 ) .
Or do you consider 1960 to be part of the 50s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>decade = 2001-2010 

Well, I choose to define 'decade' as 1997-2006, so the decade's been over for a while.
As was already pointed out, a decade is any arbitrary span of ten years.
As was also pointed out, when people refer to certain decades of years (the 50s, the 70s, the 90s, etc), they're commonly referring to the first year of that decade (1950, 1970, 1990) to the last year of that decade (1959, 1979, 1999).
Or do you consider 1960 to be part of the 50s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30534076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30533094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2318236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523308
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30529908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524004
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30534076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30533094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30527438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30526232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30528860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30525166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30524760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30523310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2318236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2318236.30522804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
