<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_27_0420217</id>
	<title>A Brief History of Modems</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261930920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://aqfl.net/" rel="nofollow">Ant</a> points out this two-page TechRadar article about <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/getting-connected-a-history-of-modems-657479">the history of modems</a>; the photographs of some behemoth old modems might give you new respect for just how much is packed into modern wireless devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ant points out this two-page TechRadar article about the history of modems ; the photographs of some behemoth old modems might give you new respect for just how much is packed into modern wireless devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ant points out this two-page TechRadar article about the history of modems; the photographs of some behemoth old modems might give you new respect for just how much is packed into modern wireless devices.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261944120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be getting old.  I still think in terms of, "acoustic couplers... 6502's... that was a few years ago."  Doesn't seem that long ago really.  Now maybe most people reading this weren't *born* yet at the time.</p><p>Soon enough though folks like us will die off, and there will be a generation which has always been connected - nonstop, rather than having to dial things up, doesn't remember the mainframe days, and thinks a 386 is an old CPU.  I suppose it's the way of things.  Doesn't make me feel any younger though!  But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work.   I attribute this to several things:</p><p>(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.</p><p>(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked.  Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.</p><p>(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical.  Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.</p><p>It's not a bad thing generally, and I'm glad so much of humanity is now connected, but there *was* something lost as well (Eternal September, loss of the original net culture, spam, widespread abuse of various protocols, a trend towards a computing monoculture...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be getting old .
I still think in terms of , " acoustic couplers... 6502 's... that was a few years ago .
" Does n't seem that long ago really .
Now maybe most people reading this were n't * born * yet at the time.Soon enough though folks like us will die off , and there will be a generation which has always been connected - nonstop , rather than having to dial things up , does n't remember the mainframe days , and thinks a 386 is an old CPU .
I suppose it 's the way of things .
Does n't make me feel any younger though !
But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work .
I attribute this to several things : ( 1 ) It 's harder to * get at * the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way .
( 2 ) Back in the 70 's and much of the 80 's , home computers were owned by hobbyists , not Joe Sixpack , so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked .
Now there still some - more on an absolute scale , but fewer percentage wise .
( 3 ) Now it 's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical .
Back then , it was not , so it was required that people were technical.It 's not a bad thing generally , and I 'm glad so much of humanity is now connected , but there * was * something lost as well ( Eternal September , loss of the original net culture , spam , widespread abuse of various protocols , a trend towards a computing monoculture... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be getting old.
I still think in terms of, "acoustic couplers... 6502's... that was a few years ago.
"  Doesn't seem that long ago really.
Now maybe most people reading this weren't *born* yet at the time.Soon enough though folks like us will die off, and there will be a generation which has always been connected - nonstop, rather than having to dial things up, doesn't remember the mainframe days, and thinks a 386 is an old CPU.
I suppose it's the way of things.
Doesn't make me feel any younger though!
But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work.
I attribute this to several things:(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.
(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked.
Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.
(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical.
Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.It's not a bad thing generally, and I'm glad so much of humanity is now connected, but there *was* something lost as well (Eternal September, loss of the original net culture, spam, widespread abuse of various protocols, a trend towards a computing monoculture...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563832</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of the Hayes VS. Telebit 14.4K wars?</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1261936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I forgot to mention was that apparently (from what I heard back in the day), Telebit was popular among uucp sites. HST was big with the BBS scene because of USR's special offer to sysops (you had to have a dedicated-line BBS, and being a Fidonet node was almost an instant qualifier). V.32/V.34 took over because nobody ever sold anything compatible with Telebit, and USR insisted on making HST an extra cost feature for Courier modems only, never putting it in their consumer Sportster line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I forgot to mention was that apparently ( from what I heard back in the day ) , Telebit was popular among uucp sites .
HST was big with the BBS scene because of USR 's special offer to sysops ( you had to have a dedicated-line BBS , and being a Fidonet node was almost an instant qualifier ) .
V.32/V.34 took over because nobody ever sold anything compatible with Telebit , and USR insisted on making HST an extra cost feature for Courier modems only , never putting it in their consumer Sportster line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I forgot to mention was that apparently (from what I heard back in the day), Telebit was popular among uucp sites.
HST was big with the BBS scene because of USR's special offer to sysops (you had to have a dedicated-line BBS, and being a Fidonet node was almost an instant qualifier).
V.32/V.34 took over because nobody ever sold anything compatible with Telebit, and USR insisted on making HST an extra cost feature for Courier modems only, never putting it in their consumer Sportster line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565108</id>
	<title>Re:Modems are hard to come by now</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1261905420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still have my old USR Sportster 33.6k dial-up modem for emergencies when cable modem goes down or something.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have my old USR Sportster 33.6k dial-up modem for emergencies when cable modem goes down or something .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have my old USR Sportster 33.6k dial-up modem for emergencies when cable modem goes down or something.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30567532</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>tirerim</author>
	<datestamp>1261925760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my house, we had an index card on the fridge with "Phone In Use" on one side and "Phone Free" on the other.  Occasionally someone would forget to check the card before making a call, but usually it worked pretty well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my house , we had an index card on the fridge with " Phone In Use " on one side and " Phone Free " on the other .
Occasionally someone would forget to check the card before making a call , but usually it worked pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my house, we had an index card on the fridge with "Phone In Use" on one side and "Phone Free" on the other.
Occasionally someone would forget to check the card before making a call, but usually it worked pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561178</id>
	<title>Parkinson's Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261856400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems, consider that a letter consists of eight bits. A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second.</p></div></blockquote><p>While one might think things have improved by four orders of magnitude (10,000x), thanks to Parkinson's Law, they have only improved by two orders (100x).  Navigating to the washingtonpost.com home page takes 7 seconds to load on my 2.5-year old 2GHz desktop with Firefox.  CTRL-A and CTRL-C then paste into Notepad yields a 15K text file.  15 * 1024 * 10 bits / 7 seconds = 19.2K.</p><p>Hey, it's like I'm back running my 1992 BBS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems , consider that a letter consists of eight bits .
A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second.While one might think things have improved by four orders of magnitude ( 10,000x ) , thanks to Parkinson 's Law , they have only improved by two orders ( 100x ) .
Navigating to the washingtonpost.com home page takes 7 seconds to load on my 2.5-year old 2GHz desktop with Firefox .
CTRL-A and CTRL-C then paste into Notepad yields a 15K text file .
15 * 1024 * 10 bits / 7 seconds = 19.2K.Hey , it 's like I 'm back running my 1992 BBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems, consider that a letter consists of eight bits.
A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second.While one might think things have improved by four orders of magnitude (10,000x), thanks to Parkinson's Law, they have only improved by two orders (100x).
Navigating to the washingtonpost.com home page takes 7 seconds to load on my 2.5-year old 2GHz desktop with Firefox.
CTRL-A and CTRL-C then paste into Notepad yields a 15K text file.
15 * 1024 * 10 bits / 7 seconds = 19.2K.Hey, it's like I'm back running my 1992 BBS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563822</id>
	<title>Research! Research! Research!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261936800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These hacks need to spend more time doing research before churning out articles, e.g. I could swear that I can remember from when I was a kid in the late 80s and had speed envy that US Robotics(Racal Vadic?) and others had already turned out 9600bps and higher speed modems(14.4kbps).  The catch was that they ONLY worked with the same brands/types of modem as they used highly proprietary mechanisms.  Then in the early-mid 90s came the 28kbps then 56k modems shortly thereafter.</p><p>Those early 9.6k+ modem were expensive as I recall, something like $1000 apiece or close, of course I may be misremembering and they may have only been $500 or but either way I was a kid and it was alot of money for those beasts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These hacks need to spend more time doing research before churning out articles , e.g .
I could swear that I can remember from when I was a kid in the late 80s and had speed envy that US Robotics ( Racal Vadic ?
) and others had already turned out 9600bps and higher speed modems ( 14.4kbps ) .
The catch was that they ONLY worked with the same brands/types of modem as they used highly proprietary mechanisms .
Then in the early-mid 90s came the 28kbps then 56k modems shortly thereafter.Those early 9.6k + modem were expensive as I recall , something like $ 1000 apiece or close , of course I may be misremembering and they may have only been $ 500 or but either way I was a kid and it was alot of money for those beasts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These hacks need to spend more time doing research before churning out articles, e.g.
I could swear that I can remember from when I was a kid in the late 80s and had speed envy that US Robotics(Racal Vadic?
) and others had already turned out 9600bps and higher speed modems(14.4kbps).
The catch was that they ONLY worked with the same brands/types of modem as they used highly proprietary mechanisms.
Then in the early-mid 90s came the 28kbps then 56k modems shortly thereafter.Those early 9.6k+ modem were expensive as I recall, something like $1000 apiece or close, of course I may be misremembering and they may have only been $500 or but either way I was a kid and it was alot of money for those beasts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569158</id>
	<title>Re:No mention of Telebit?</title>
	<author>cramoft</author>
	<datestamp>1261992180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What history of modems also skips is Vadic and Racal Vadic.  The first full duplex 1200 bps modem (VA-3400) was designed John A.C. Bingham.  It was patented and was copied by Bell/ATT to make the Bell 212AT. The VA-3400 use offset carriers which gave 2.5 dB better FDX performance than the 212AT modem. Because the VA-3400 had offset carriers it made a great acoustic couple. The 212AT was very poor at acoustic coupling.

Vadic also had one of the best performing V32 MODEMs on the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What history of modems also skips is Vadic and Racal Vadic .
The first full duplex 1200 bps modem ( VA-3400 ) was designed John A.C. Bingham. It was patented and was copied by Bell/ATT to make the Bell 212AT .
The VA-3400 use offset carriers which gave 2.5 dB better FDX performance than the 212AT modem .
Because the VA-3400 had offset carriers it made a great acoustic couple .
The 212AT was very poor at acoustic coupling .
Vadic also had one of the best performing V32 MODEMs on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What history of modems also skips is Vadic and Racal Vadic.
The first full duplex 1200 bps modem (VA-3400) was designed John A.C. Bingham.  It was patented and was copied by Bell/ATT to make the Bell 212AT.
The VA-3400 use offset carriers which gave 2.5 dB better FDX performance than the 212AT modem.
Because the VA-3400 had offset carriers it made a great acoustic couple.
The 212AT was very poor at acoustic coupling.
Vadic also had one of the best performing V32 MODEMs on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562702</id>
	<title>Bah, kids nowdays -- 42bps modems</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1261923900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, kids nowdays, so spoiled with the megabit modems.</p><p>Before the Bell System modems, there were over-the-airwaves modems, going back to 1930 or so. The endpoints were teletype machines, whirring away furiously at 60WPM, 7.42 bits per character. ( 5 data bits, one start  bit, 1.42 stop bits).</p><p>The modems wee made up of L/C filters and a trunkful of vacuum tubes.  I used to have a military modem, a CVV -something, that was the size of a suitcase and weighed about 60 pounds.  42 BPS.<br>But it could do 42BPS over a noisy fading shortwave radio link, all day long, while taking direct mortar rounds, and never say "NO CARRIER."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , kids nowdays , so spoiled with the megabit modems.Before the Bell System modems , there were over-the-airwaves modems , going back to 1930 or so .
The endpoints were teletype machines , whirring away furiously at 60WPM , 7.42 bits per character .
( 5 data bits , one start bit , 1.42 stop bits ) .The modems wee made up of L/C filters and a trunkful of vacuum tubes .
I used to have a military modem , a CVV -something , that was the size of a suitcase and weighed about 60 pounds .
42 BPS.But it could do 42BPS over a noisy fading shortwave radio link , all day long , while taking direct mortar rounds , and never say " NO CARRIER .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, kids nowdays, so spoiled with the megabit modems.Before the Bell System modems, there were over-the-airwaves modems, going back to 1930 or so.
The endpoints were teletype machines, whirring away furiously at 60WPM, 7.42 bits per character.
( 5 data bits, one start  bit, 1.42 stop bits).The modems wee made up of L/C filters and a trunkful of vacuum tubes.
I used to have a military modem, a CVV -something, that was the size of a suitcase and weighed about 60 pounds.
42 BPS.But it could do 42BPS over a noisy fading shortwave radio link, all day long, while taking direct mortar rounds, and never say "NO CARRIER.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561144</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1261855860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another thing that should be mentioned is that when downloading at 300 baud, the text comes onto the screen much slower than you can read. Now when I think about it, I feel amazed that I tolerated it, but it seemed exciting at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing that should be mentioned is that when downloading at 300 baud , the text comes onto the screen much slower than you can read .
Now when I think about it , I feel amazed that I tolerated it , but it seemed exciting at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing that should be mentioned is that when downloading at 300 baud, the text comes onto the screen much slower than you can read.
Now when I think about it, I feel amazed that I tolerated it, but it seemed exciting at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560826</id>
	<title>Honebrew</title>
	<author>Ozoner</author>
	<datestamp>1261850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sad that only commercial modems are mentioned.</p><p>I well remember building a series of homemade modems starting in the early '80s.</p><p>There were many magazine articles for homebrew modems. Most of these derived from the FSK radio modems in widespread use by Hams at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad that only commercial modems are mentioned.I well remember building a series of homemade modems starting in the early '80s.There were many magazine articles for homebrew modems .
Most of these derived from the FSK radio modems in widespread use by Hams at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad that only commercial modems are mentioned.I well remember building a series of homemade modems starting in the early '80s.There were many magazine articles for homebrew modems.
Most of these derived from the FSK radio modems in widespread use by Hams at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561022</id>
	<title>Could you tell speed and error correction by ear?</title>
	<author>ashitaka</author>
	<datestamp>1261853700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After thousands of times listening to my various modems connecting from 300bps to 56K and with the various incarnations of error correction I was eventually able to knowing how fast I was connected by sound alone. The problem was that as modems got faster and more sophisticated the connection time kept getting longer and longer. Sometimes I'd have to wait through 45 seconds or more of whistles, grinds and groans before the two modem would train.  Ah, the good old days.</p><p>In the vain hope that they'll have nostalgia value someday I still have in my possession:</p><p>1) Mint condition Hayes Smartmodem 2400.  The original workhorse.<br>2) Practical Peripherals 14.4K.  long box with a one-line LCD that displays the connection speed and error correction mode<br>3) US Robotics 56K Courier - The last great standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After thousands of times listening to my various modems connecting from 300bps to 56K and with the various incarnations of error correction I was eventually able to knowing how fast I was connected by sound alone .
The problem was that as modems got faster and more sophisticated the connection time kept getting longer and longer .
Sometimes I 'd have to wait through 45 seconds or more of whistles , grinds and groans before the two modem would train .
Ah , the good old days.In the vain hope that they 'll have nostalgia value someday I still have in my possession : 1 ) Mint condition Hayes Smartmodem 2400 .
The original workhorse.2 ) Practical Peripherals 14.4K .
long box with a one-line LCD that displays the connection speed and error correction mode3 ) US Robotics 56K Courier - The last great standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After thousands of times listening to my various modems connecting from 300bps to 56K and with the various incarnations of error correction I was eventually able to knowing how fast I was connected by sound alone.
The problem was that as modems got faster and more sophisticated the connection time kept getting longer and longer.
Sometimes I'd have to wait through 45 seconds or more of whistles, grinds and groans before the two modem would train.
Ah, the good old days.In the vain hope that they'll have nostalgia value someday I still have in my possession:1) Mint condition Hayes Smartmodem 2400.
The original workhorse.2) Practical Peripherals 14.4K.
long box with a one-line LCD that displays the connection speed and error correction mode3) US Robotics 56K Courier - The last great standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565568</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261908660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>~~op^pp~^^po~anks for hanging up the phone, dear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>~ ~ op ^ pp ~ ^ ^ po ~ anks for hanging up the phone , dear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>~~op^pp~^^po~anks for hanging up the phone, dear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561794</id>
	<title>Old Computer Code 5</title>
	<author>Rick Richardson</author>
	<datestamp>1261907940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solve:</p><p><a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache\_details.aspx?guid=9a9af759-f3f6-4edd-88a5-31e0d8b30d57" title="geocaching.com">http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache\_details.aspx?guid=9a9af759-f3f6-4edd-88a5-31e0d8b30d57</a> [geocaching.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solve : http : //www.geocaching.com/seek/cache \ _details.aspx ? guid = 9a9af759-f3f6-4edd-88a5-31e0d8b30d57 [ geocaching.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solve:http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache\_details.aspx?guid=9a9af759-f3f6-4edd-88a5-31e0d8b30d57 [geocaching.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566312</id>
	<title>Re:Could you tell speed and error correction by ea</title>
	<author>swrider</author>
	<datestamp>1261914900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you want a Hayes Smartmodem 1200 in the box?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want a Hayes Smartmodem 1200 in the box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want a Hayes Smartmodem 1200 in the box?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561678</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261906200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator. Hence it should be capitalized. This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC). Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....</p></div><p>Yes, <b>thank you</b>! This is what I'm always telling people, but they won't listen!</p><p>Some other terms most people don't know to capitalize:</p><p>SCROTUM: SCRatchable Outer Testicle-holder Under Manhood</p><p>PENIS: Phallic ENlarging Insertable Schlong</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word MODEM ( as the article indicates ) represents MOdulatorDEModulator .
Hence it should be capitalized .
This is also try of enCOderDECoder ( CODEC ) .
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Yes , thank you !
This is what I 'm always telling people , but they wo n't listen ! Some other terms most people do n't know to capitalize : SCROTUM : SCRatchable Outer Testicle-holder Under ManhoodPENIS : Phallic ENlarging Insertable Schlong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.
Hence it should be capitalized.
This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Yes, thank you!
This is what I'm always telling people, but they won't listen!Some other terms most people don't know to capitalize:SCROTUM: SCRatchable Outer Testicle-holder Under ManhoodPENIS: Phallic ENlarging Insertable Schlong
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563526</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1261933680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My parent's solution to this was to get me my own phone line (they paid the line rental, but I had to pay for calls, and since this was the UK that meant online time cost a bit under 1p/minute).  Unfortunately, we were right on the end of a rural street and the only way of getting an extra line was for BT to install a multiplexer, which halved the available bandwidth.  Fine for voice, but it meant that you couldn't get more than about 26.4Kb/s from a MODEM.  On the plus side, I was able to swap my 56K WinModem for a 28.8K serial port modem, although I swapped them back when I left home.</p><p>
Those WinModems were the reason I stayed with Windows for so long.  All of the rest of my hardware worked with Linux and *BSD, but with a WinModem I couldn't connect to the Internet, and on a student budget I couldn't afford a hardware modem (they cost about what I spent on food in a fortnight back then).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My parent 's solution to this was to get me my own phone line ( they paid the line rental , but I had to pay for calls , and since this was the UK that meant online time cost a bit under 1p/minute ) .
Unfortunately , we were right on the end of a rural street and the only way of getting an extra line was for BT to install a multiplexer , which halved the available bandwidth .
Fine for voice , but it meant that you could n't get more than about 26.4Kb/s from a MODEM .
On the plus side , I was able to swap my 56K WinModem for a 28.8K serial port modem , although I swapped them back when I left home .
Those WinModems were the reason I stayed with Windows for so long .
All of the rest of my hardware worked with Linux and * BSD , but with a WinModem I could n't connect to the Internet , and on a student budget I could n't afford a hardware modem ( they cost about what I spent on food in a fortnight back then ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My parent's solution to this was to get me my own phone line (they paid the line rental, but I had to pay for calls, and since this was the UK that meant online time cost a bit under 1p/minute).
Unfortunately, we were right on the end of a rural street and the only way of getting an extra line was for BT to install a multiplexer, which halved the available bandwidth.
Fine for voice, but it meant that you couldn't get more than about 26.4Kb/s from a MODEM.
On the plus side, I was able to swap my 56K WinModem for a 28.8K serial port modem, although I swapped them back when I left home.
Those WinModems were the reason I stayed with Windows for so long.
All of the rest of my hardware worked with Linux and *BSD, but with a WinModem I couldn't connect to the Internet, and on a student budget I couldn't afford a hardware modem (they cost about what I spent on food in a fortnight back then).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560816</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1261850100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;In the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US). Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.</p><p>Really?  I assumed that by the late 90s, the US had transitioned to 8-bit sampling.  I mean, DS-0 in the US has been 64kbps (8-bit samples * 8000 samples per second) since, what, the 50s?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; In the mid-90s , we got BRI ( ISDN , 2 * 64 kbps in most of the world , 2 * 56 kbps in the US ) .
Which pretty much ended the modem era , except for in the US and UK , where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.Really ?
I assumed that by the late 90s , the US had transitioned to 8-bit sampling .
I mean , DS-0 in the US has been 64kbps ( 8-bit samples * 8000 samples per second ) since , what , the 50s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;In the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US).
Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.Really?
I assumed that by the late 90s, the US had transitioned to 8-bit sampling.
I mean, DS-0 in the US has been 64kbps (8-bit samples * 8000 samples per second) since, what, the 50s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1261940520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just computers, it's practically everything technological.  When I was in high school in the '70s the vast majority of people who weren't swimming in money worked on our own cars, installed our own stereos, hooked up our own telephones, fixed our own appliances.<br> <br>

For that matter, I guess it's more than just technology.  Almost none of the kids graduating with my nephew know how to fix a leaking faucet, grow a tomato, or change the oil in their car.  Hell, two thirds of them can't even cook rice.<br> <br>

I can't help but feel that we've lost something valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just computers , it 's practically everything technological .
When I was in high school in the '70s the vast majority of people who were n't swimming in money worked on our own cars , installed our own stereos , hooked up our own telephones , fixed our own appliances .
For that matter , I guess it 's more than just technology .
Almost none of the kids graduating with my nephew know how to fix a leaking faucet , grow a tomato , or change the oil in their car .
Hell , two thirds of them ca n't even cook rice .
I ca n't help but feel that we 've lost something valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just computers, it's practically everything technological.
When I was in high school in the '70s the vast majority of people who weren't swimming in money worked on our own cars, installed our own stereos, hooked up our own telephones, fixed our own appliances.
For that matter, I guess it's more than just technology.
Almost none of the kids graduating with my nephew know how to fix a leaking faucet, grow a tomato, or change the oil in their car.
Hell, two thirds of them can't even cook rice.
I can't help but feel that we've lost something valuable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562246</id>
	<title>Line Conditioners</title>
	<author>hebertrich</author>
	<datestamp>1261914840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNCP Telecom ( at least them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. certainly others too )  used telephone line conditioners.<br>Their role was to boost the high frequencies so's you would get more bandwidth specially<br>in places where the telephone lines were a bit below spec or borderline or too long<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Im surprised<br>noone seems to have noted their absence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  guess you were all skipping class that day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Ric</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNCP Telecom ( at least them .. certainly others too ) used telephone line conditioners.Their role was to boost the high frequencies so 's you would get more bandwidth speciallyin places where the telephone lines were a bit below spec or borderline or too long .Im surprisednoone seems to have noted their absence .. guess you were all skipping class that day : ) Ric</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNCP Telecom ( at least them .. certainly others too )  used telephone line conditioners.Their role was to boost the high frequencies so's you would get more bandwidth speciallyin places where the telephone lines were a bit below spec or borderline or too long .Im surprisednoone seems to have noted their absence ..  guess you were all skipping class that day :)Ric</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560852</id>
	<title>A few things missing there</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1261850880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 70's, a number of ppl still had party lines. Basically, could not use it. Those that did not have party lines had very dirty lines. My modem ran normally at ~75 baud, though it was rated at 150. The reason was simply due to the lines. If you ran at 150, the chars would get bad. And while there was a parity bit, it really did not do the job.  So, you ran slower and slower speeds.
Also, it was possible (in fact, probable) to have your connnection cut. This was all in Northern Ill (the largest close town was a whopping 15K ppl; McHenry, Ill).

Once I moved to Ft. Collins (ft. fun), Colorado, the lines improved in the town. We ran 150 and some places could run 300 baud. Outside, of the town, it was still party lines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 70 's , a number of ppl still had party lines .
Basically , could not use it .
Those that did not have party lines had very dirty lines .
My modem ran normally at ~ 75 baud , though it was rated at 150 .
The reason was simply due to the lines .
If you ran at 150 , the chars would get bad .
And while there was a parity bit , it really did not do the job .
So , you ran slower and slower speeds .
Also , it was possible ( in fact , probable ) to have your connnection cut .
This was all in Northern Ill ( the largest close town was a whopping 15K ppl ; McHenry , Ill ) .
Once I moved to Ft. Collins ( ft. fun ) , Colorado , the lines improved in the town .
We ran 150 and some places could run 300 baud .
Outside , of the town , it was still party lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 70's, a number of ppl still had party lines.
Basically, could not use it.
Those that did not have party lines had very dirty lines.
My modem ran normally at ~75 baud, though it was rated at 150.
The reason was simply due to the lines.
If you ran at 150, the chars would get bad.
And while there was a parity bit, it really did not do the job.
So, you ran slower and slower speeds.
Also, it was possible (in fact, probable) to have your connnection cut.
This was all in Northern Ill (the largest close town was a whopping 15K ppl; McHenry, Ill).
Once I moved to Ft. Collins (ft. fun), Colorado, the lines improved in the town.
We ran 150 and some places could run 300 baud.
Outside, of the town, it was still party lines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563272</id>
	<title>Re:For years, Hayes ended press releases with +++A</title>
	<author>hollywench</author>
	<datestamp>1261930920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AOL  was once upon a time known as Quantum.  If you didn't have a Commodore 64, you didn't get to play online. The average IQ at Qlink was a LOT higher then, lemme tell you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL was once upon a time known as Quantum .
If you did n't have a Commodore 64 , you did n't get to play online .
The average IQ at Qlink was a LOT higher then , lem me tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL  was once upon a time known as Quantum.
If you didn't have a Commodore 64, you didn't get to play online.
The average IQ at Qlink was a LOT higher then, lemme tell you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988</id>
	<title>For years, Hayes ended press releases with +++ATH0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261853220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Its a shame that the article missed so much....<br><br>Like the times when much of the industry didn't want to license the Hetherington Patent from Hayes  on the "guard time" surrounding the "+++" in the escape sequence, so Hayes ended all of their press releases with +++ATH0  (which would cause a lot of modems to hang up on the BBS systems of their day).<br><br>They also missed the interesting fact that the "56K" modem was an old idea that was rattling around Bellcore for years before 1996 and fairly common knowledge in the Bell system. [The big issue with getting there was the need to have digital trunks connecting all of the dial-in server pools with the telephone network.]<br><br>Probable never would have become a mainstream consumer device without AOL.  Until AOL, you really had to be a geek to use one.<br><br>And, of course, the modem wars of 1996-1998, as the major technology companies duked it out, the vast majority of modem companies went bust, including Hayes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a shame that the article missed so much....Like the times when much of the industry did n't want to license the Hetherington Patent from Hayes on the " guard time " surrounding the " + + + " in the escape sequence , so Hayes ended all of their press releases with + + + ATH0 ( which would cause a lot of modems to hang up on the BBS systems of their day ) .They also missed the interesting fact that the " 56K " modem was an old idea that was rattling around Bellcore for years before 1996 and fairly common knowledge in the Bell system .
[ The big issue with getting there was the need to have digital trunks connecting all of the dial-in server pools with the telephone network .
] Probable never would have become a mainstream consumer device without AOL .
Until AOL , you really had to be a geek to use one.And , of course , the modem wars of 1996-1998 , as the major technology companies duked it out , the vast majority of modem companies went bust , including Hayes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a shame that the article missed so much....Like the times when much of the industry didn't want to license the Hetherington Patent from Hayes  on the "guard time" surrounding the "+++" in the escape sequence, so Hayes ended all of their press releases with +++ATH0  (which would cause a lot of modems to hang up on the BBS systems of their day).They also missed the interesting fact that the "56K" modem was an old idea that was rattling around Bellcore for years before 1996 and fairly common knowledge in the Bell system.
[The big issue with getting there was the need to have digital trunks connecting all of the dial-in server pools with the telephone network.
]Probable never would have become a mainstream consumer device without AOL.
Until AOL, you really had to be a geek to use one.And, of course, the modem wars of 1996-1998, as the major technology companies duked it out, the vast majority of modem companies went bust, including Hayes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561088</id>
	<title>No mention of the Hayes VS. Telebit 14.4K wars??</title>
	<author>bADlOGIN</author>
	<datestamp>1261854840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the early '90 the whole HST vs V32.bis was a big deal for a couple of years. It's a bit sad to not see this mentioned in terms of the impact to the PC modem world...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the early '90 the whole HST vs V32.bis was a big deal for a couple of years .
It 's a bit sad to not see this mentioned in terms of the impact to the PC modem world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the early '90 the whole HST vs V32.bis was a big deal for a couple of years.
It's a bit sad to not see this mentioned in terms of the impact to the PC modem world...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566128</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1261913280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I lose DSL about 3 times a year for a day or more at a time. The POTS modem is a reliable backup during those periods; I'm delighted that my ISP keeps it going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I lose DSL about 3 times a year for a day or more at a time .
The POTS modem is a reliable backup during those periods ; I 'm delighted that my ISP keeps it going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lose DSL about 3 times a year for a day or more at a time.
The POTS modem is a reliable backup during those periods; I'm delighted that my ISP keeps it going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562720</id>
	<title>I am old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261924080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first modem experience was in 1979 with an Epson 110 baud acoustic modem using a rotary phone and connected to a line printer.  The connection was from my high school library to the West Chester State College outside of Philadelphia.  Played a lot of text games - Hunt The Wumpus, Star Trek, Adventure, etc. and learned BASIC - I printed out the code and learned how the games were made.  That was 30 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first modem experience was in 1979 with an Epson 110 baud acoustic modem using a rotary phone and connected to a line printer .
The connection was from my high school library to the West Chester State College outside of Philadelphia .
Played a lot of text games - Hunt The Wumpus , Star Trek , Adventure , etc .
and learned BASIC - I printed out the code and learned how the games were made .
That was 30 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first modem experience was in 1979 with an Epson 110 baud acoustic modem using a rotary phone and connected to a line printer.
The connection was from my high school library to the West Chester State College outside of Philadelphia.
Played a lot of text games - Hunt The Wumpus, Star Trek, Adventure, etc.
and learned BASIC - I printed out the code and learned how the games were made.
That was 30 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561018</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>pbjones</author>
	<datestamp>1261853640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>baud to bps included the stop bits etc, modems simply changed freqs to match the 1's and 0's. I think there is still an acoustic coupled modem in my cupboard, next to my IBM XT. The big shift was from FSK to QAM, then the bps really started to climb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>baud to bps included the stop bits etc , modems simply changed freqs to match the 1 's and 0 's .
I think there is still an acoustic coupled modem in my cupboard , next to my IBM XT .
The big shift was from FSK to QAM , then the bps really started to climb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>baud to bps included the stop bits etc, modems simply changed freqs to match the 1's and 0's.
I think there is still an acoustic coupled modem in my cupboard, next to my IBM XT.
The big shift was from FSK to QAM, then the bps really started to climb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563830</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, kids nowdays -- 42bps modems</title>
	<author>Nezer</author>
	<datestamp>1261936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.42 stop bits? No wonder it was so slow, the poor computers were confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.42 stop bits ?
No wonder it was so slow , the poor computers were confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.42 stop bits?
No wonder it was so slow, the poor computers were confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</id>
	<title>As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1261849740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to <i>let everyone in the house know you were on the "modem"</i>.  This meant, sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house, so that someone would tell you they needed to use the phone rather than just picking up the phone and dialing.  You also couldn't tie up the phone for hours on end.  There was very very few people that had an answering service (not an answering machine), like most do today with VOIP or CableCompany Provided Voice.</p><p>You also had to remember, if you were one of those people that had it, disable call waiting, as many modems would drop the connection when a call waiting signal came through. I believe you had to add a *70 after the AT.. so you had something like:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>AT<br>OK<br>AT&amp;F<br>OK<br>ATDT*70,,,867-5309<br>
&nbsp; <br>RING.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Today people can spend all day actively or passively (by leaving the computer on) online.  Wit</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to let everyone in the house know you were on the " modem " .
This meant , sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house , so that someone would tell you they needed to use the phone rather than just picking up the phone and dialing .
You also could n't tie up the phone for hours on end .
There was very very few people that had an answering service ( not an answering machine ) , like most do today with VOIP or CableCompany Provided Voice.You also had to remember , if you were one of those people that had it , disable call waiting , as many modems would drop the connection when a call waiting signal came through .
I believe you had to add a * 70 after the AT.. so you had something like : ATOKAT&amp;FOKATDT * 70,,,867-5309   RING .
Today people can spend all day actively or passively ( by leaving the computer on ) online .
Wit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to let everyone in the house know you were on the "modem".
This meant, sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house, so that someone would tell you they needed to use the phone rather than just picking up the phone and dialing.
You also couldn't tie up the phone for hours on end.
There was very very few people that had an answering service (not an answering machine), like most do today with VOIP or CableCompany Provided Voice.You also had to remember, if you were one of those people that had it, disable call waiting, as many modems would drop the connection when a call waiting signal came through.
I believe you had to add a *70 after the AT.. so you had something like: ATOKAT&amp;FOKATDT*70,,,867-5309
  RING.
Today people can spend all day actively or passively (by leaving the computer on) online.
Wit
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564888</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>temojen</author>
	<datestamp>1261947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a BBS run on a 2400bps modem at the same time as all the others in town had 9600 and disallowed connections below 2400. My board allowed any speed. The other sysops were trying to convince me to get a 9600 and forbid 1200 and below. My position was that everyone got 30 minutes anyways, and there weren't any files to transfer, so why would I care how many bits they get.</p><p>I also had people in town who thought I must have really good porn since the line was always busy and all there appeared to be was one instance each of BRE and TW2002, two grafitti walls, and local messaging. Truth was I just had a bunch of people on 300 and 1200 bps modems who wanted to play BRE and TW2002 and used all their turns every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a BBS run on a 2400bps modem at the same time as all the others in town had 9600 and disallowed connections below 2400 .
My board allowed any speed .
The other sysops were trying to convince me to get a 9600 and forbid 1200 and below .
My position was that everyone got 30 minutes anyways , and there were n't any files to transfer , so why would I care how many bits they get.I also had people in town who thought I must have really good porn since the line was always busy and all there appeared to be was one instance each of BRE and TW2002 , two grafitti walls , and local messaging .
Truth was I just had a bunch of people on 300 and 1200 bps modems who wanted to play BRE and TW2002 and used all their turns every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a BBS run on a 2400bps modem at the same time as all the others in town had 9600 and disallowed connections below 2400.
My board allowed any speed.
The other sysops were trying to convince me to get a 9600 and forbid 1200 and below.
My position was that everyone got 30 minutes anyways, and there weren't any files to transfer, so why would I care how many bits they get.I also had people in town who thought I must have really good porn since the line was always busy and all there appeared to be was one instance each of BRE and TW2002, two grafitti walls, and local messaging.
Truth was I just had a bunch of people on 300 and 1200 bps modems who wanted to play BRE and TW2002 and used all their turns every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565418</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1261907400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice rant! I agree with it too and it looks like we had the same computers too: <a href="http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html" title="zimage.com">http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html</a> [zimage.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice rant !
I agree with it too and it looks like we had the same computers too : http : //alpha.zimage.com/ ~ ant/antfarm/about/toys.html [ zimage.com ] ... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice rant!
I agree with it too and it looks like we had the same computers too: http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html [zimage.com] ... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561410</id>
	<title>Re:The did have 1200 baud modems in the 1970s</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1261946520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most (all?) terminals still support ^H.<br>Or you just mean the lack of a backspace key sucked... or?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ( all ?
) terminals still support ^ H.Or you just mean the lack of a backspace key sucked... or ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most (all?
) terminals still support ^H.Or you just mean the lack of a backspace key sucked... or?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30599900</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1259836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium</p></div></blockquote><p>A view commonly expressed by the occasional fossil who forgot that email stopped being a text-only medium <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1521" title="ietf.org">almost two decades ago</a> [ietf.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] the occasional twit who forgot that email is a * text * mediumA view commonly expressed by the occasional fossil who forgot that email stopped being a text-only medium almost two decades ago [ ietf.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* mediumA view commonly expressed by the occasional fossil who forgot that email stopped being a text-only medium almost two decades ago [ietf.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562828</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1261925220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully i started my online life at 300, but yes acoustic.. fond (!) memories of dialing the ( rotary ) phone, wait for an answer, then slam the stupid handset into the cups real fast before the receiving end gave up..</p><p>Then remembering you forgot to turn off 'call waiting', and prayed that no one would call before your transmission was complete..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully i started my online life at 300 , but yes acoustic.. fond ( !
) memories of dialing the ( rotary ) phone , wait for an answer , then slam the stupid handset into the cups real fast before the receiving end gave up..Then remembering you forgot to turn off 'call waiting ' , and prayed that no one would call before your transmission was complete. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully i started my online life at 300, but yes acoustic.. fond (!
) memories of dialing the ( rotary ) phone, wait for an answer, then slam the stupid handset into the cups real fast before the receiving end gave up..Then remembering you forgot to turn off 'call waiting', and prayed that no one would call before your transmission was complete..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569826</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262005860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On typing speed, you probably mean 75 bits per second (how many characters per second that is depends on start/stop bits, parity, 7 vs. 8-bit characters, but generally in the 7-10 range).</p><p>You're also missing quite a few intermediate standards.  For quite some time, 14.4k was the most common "fast" modem, and 28.8k was also relatively common for a while.  These didn't correspond to standard serial connection rates but were among the most common nominal rates for modems.  Anyway, from 2400 (where it was sometimes present and sometimes not) up, you had error correction and compression making the nominal baud rate not that relevant (and you'd generally run the serial link between the modem and computer at a higher bit rate).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On typing speed , you probably mean 75 bits per second ( how many characters per second that is depends on start/stop bits , parity , 7 vs. 8-bit characters , but generally in the 7-10 range ) .You 're also missing quite a few intermediate standards .
For quite some time , 14.4k was the most common " fast " modem , and 28.8k was also relatively common for a while .
These did n't correspond to standard serial connection rates but were among the most common nominal rates for modems .
Anyway , from 2400 ( where it was sometimes present and sometimes not ) up , you had error correction and compression making the nominal baud rate not that relevant ( and you 'd generally run the serial link between the modem and computer at a higher bit rate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On typing speed, you probably mean 75 bits per second (how many characters per second that is depends on start/stop bits, parity, 7 vs. 8-bit characters, but generally in the 7-10 range).You're also missing quite a few intermediate standards.
For quite some time, 14.4k was the most common "fast" modem, and 28.8k was also relatively common for a while.
These didn't correspond to standard serial connection rates but were among the most common nominal rates for modems.
Anyway, from 2400 (where it was sometimes present and sometimes not) up, you had error correction and compression making the nominal baud rate not that relevant (and you'd generally run the serial link between the modem and computer at a higher bit rate).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561492</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>redneckHippe</author>
	<datestamp>1261947420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still miss Jenny eh? Me Too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still miss Jenny eh ?
Me Too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still miss Jenny eh?
Me Too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565778</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>oasisbob</author>
	<datestamp>1261910280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not since 1996 (and probably earlier) when <a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html" title="faqs.org">RFC 2045</a> [faqs.org] was written.</p><p>The last century called, they want their Mutt-grasping curmudgeon back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a * text * medium.Not since 1996 ( and probably earlier ) when RFC 2045 [ faqs.org ] was written.The last century called , they want their Mutt-grasping curmudgeon back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium.Not since 1996 (and probably earlier) when RFC 2045 [faqs.org] was written.The last century called, they want their Mutt-grasping curmudgeon back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563956</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never heard of 38400. You mean 33.6k. Unless things were different on your planet.<br>Also, the high speed modems don't have the concept of "channels", where did you get that from? A "baud" is a symbol, a symbol can represent more than one bit.<br>You're so off base I don't even know where to begin. Are you drunk, trolling, or just stupid? Are you one of those people who makes stuff, then never checks convinced he is correct and then repeats the made-up stuff with authority?<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56\_kbit/s</p><p>And how is the modem era ended? How are you connecting to the net now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never heard of 38400 .
You mean 33.6k .
Unless things were different on your planet.Also , the high speed modems do n't have the concept of " channels " , where did you get that from ?
A " baud " is a symbol , a symbol can represent more than one bit.You 're so off base I do n't even know where to begin .
Are you drunk , trolling , or just stupid ?
Are you one of those people who makes stuff , then never checks convinced he is correct and then repeats the made-up stuff with authority ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56 \ _kbit/sAnd how is the modem era ended ?
How are you connecting to the net now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never heard of 38400.
You mean 33.6k.
Unless things were different on your planet.Also, the high speed modems don't have the concept of "channels", where did you get that from?
A "baud" is a symbol, a symbol can represent more than one bit.You're so off base I don't even know where to begin.
Are you drunk, trolling, or just stupid?
Are you one of those people who makes stuff, then never checks convinced he is correct and then repeats the made-up stuff with authority?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56\_kbit/sAnd how is the modem era ended?
How are you connecting to the net now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562688</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261923660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because ADSL is so much more reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because ADSL is so much more reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because ADSL is so much more reliable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560992</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261853280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pedantic much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pedantic much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pedantic much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562560</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1261920840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps this is one reason why people today say "bandwidth" when they mean data rate (aka channel capacity). It's easy to confuse "baud" with bits per second if you're not technically oriented. Baud rate corresponds to bandwidth, you need 2400 Hz of bandwidth for 2400 transitions per second. Higher bandwidth means a potentially higher data rate, so again this is probably easy to confuse. Then we also have "broadband", which again has nothing directly to do with data rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is one reason why people today say " bandwidth " when they mean data rate ( aka channel capacity ) .
It 's easy to confuse " baud " with bits per second if you 're not technically oriented .
Baud rate corresponds to bandwidth , you need 2400 Hz of bandwidth for 2400 transitions per second .
Higher bandwidth means a potentially higher data rate , so again this is probably easy to confuse .
Then we also have " broadband " , which again has nothing directly to do with data rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is one reason why people today say "bandwidth" when they mean data rate (aka channel capacity).
It's easy to confuse "baud" with bits per second if you're not technically oriented.
Baud rate corresponds to bandwidth, you need 2400 Hz of bandwidth for 2400 transitions per second.
Higher bandwidth means a potentially higher data rate, so again this is probably easy to confuse.
Then we also have "broadband", which again has nothing directly to do with data rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560824</id>
	<title>u geek</title>
	<author>nthitz</author>
	<datestamp>1261850280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562818</id>
	<title>Hayes had great EE design, and also case design</title>
	<author>badusername</author>
	<datestamp>1261925100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Hayes Smart-Modems of the early 1990s were some of the most attractive electronics of the era.  They had that aluminum case, with ever-blinking LEDs behind the black window.  Hayes were top of the line for a while.  A short while, unfortunately for them.

I Googled and found this interesting site <a href="http://www.heatherington.net/hayes/index.html" title="heatherington.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.heatherington.net/hayes/index.html</a> [heatherington.net]

Such big hair at the time.. for men and women.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Hayes Smart-Modems of the early 1990s were some of the most attractive electronics of the era .
They had that aluminum case , with ever-blinking LEDs behind the black window .
Hayes were top of the line for a while .
A short while , unfortunately for them .
I Googled and found this interesting site http : //www.heatherington.net/hayes/index.html [ heatherington.net ] Such big hair at the time.. for men and women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Hayes Smart-Modems of the early 1990s were some of the most attractive electronics of the era.
They had that aluminum case, with ever-blinking LEDs behind the black window.
Hayes were top of the line for a while.
A short while, unfortunately for them.
I Googled and found this interesting site http://www.heatherington.net/hayes/index.html [heatherington.net]

Such big hair at the time.. for men and women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563922</id>
	<title>If it didn't come in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your modem didn't come in an oak box, and have a telephone cord hanging out of the top, it's too new and doesn't count as part of a history of real PC modems. 134.5 baud ought to be fast enough for anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your modem did n't come in an oak box , and have a telephone cord hanging out of the top , it 's too new and does n't count as part of a history of real PC modems .
134.5 baud ought to be fast enough for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your modem didn't come in an oak box, and have a telephone cord hanging out of the top, it's too new and doesn't count as part of a history of real PC modems.
134.5 baud ought to be fast enough for anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563384</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1261931940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long time</p></div><p>But not in the United States. We pretty much went directly from 300 baud to 1200 baud full duplex (212) in the States in the heyday of BBSes in the early '80s. I do recall reading that 1200/75 was used for those French terminals (Minitel?), so that probably helped to make it more popular in Europe.
</p><p>Of course one of the problems with 1200/75 is that the other end has to be 75/1200, so it's more useful for a commercial online information service than for a BBS, especially one with a warez section.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long timeBut not in the United States .
We pretty much went directly from 300 baud to 1200 baud full duplex ( 212 ) in the States in the heyday of BBSes in the early '80s .
I do recall reading that 1200/75 was used for those French terminals ( Minitel ?
) , so that probably helped to make it more popular in Europe .
Of course one of the problems with 1200/75 is that the other end has to be 75/1200 , so it 's more useful for a commercial online information service than for a BBS , especially one with a warez section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long timeBut not in the United States.
We pretty much went directly from 300 baud to 1200 baud full duplex (212) in the States in the heyday of BBSes in the early '80s.
I do recall reading that 1200/75 was used for those French terminals (Minitel?
), so that probably helped to make it more popular in Europe.
Of course one of the problems with 1200/75 is that the other end has to be 75/1200, so it's more useful for a commercial online information service than for a BBS, especially one with a warez section.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</id>
	<title>Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261850880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article confuses baud rate and bps.
<p>
No MODEM using the standards indicated has worked at any speed greater than 2400 baud.
(That means 2400 transitions per second).</p><p>
Many MODEMs work at 4800, 9600, 14400, 56000 bps (bits per second, or pieces of digital information per second).
</p><p>
What the MODEMs have done is use the ability to deliver multiple bits per such transition using FSK, QFSK,QAM, etc.
</p><p>
MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed, and did not buffer.   Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques.
</p><p>
Original MODEMs didn't start at 150baud, they started at 75baud, but lazy authors write lazy articles.</p><p>
The acoustic-coupler worked great at 300baud (TI Silent 700), miserably at 600baud, and terribly at 1200baud.</p><p>
Still this technology made itself obsolete.  People were tying up VOICE channels on the PSTN switches and Telcos hated it,
so they created DSL to take data off the voice channels.</p><p>
E</p><p>
P.S. The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.  Hence it should be capitalized.  This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).  Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article confuses baud rate and bps .
No MODEM using the standards indicated has worked at any speed greater than 2400 baud .
( That means 2400 transitions per second ) .
Many MODEMs work at 4800 , 9600 , 14400 , 56000 bps ( bits per second , or pieces of digital information per second ) .
What the MODEMs have done is use the ability to deliver multiple bits per such transition using FSK , QFSK,QAM , etc .
MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed , and did not buffer .
Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques .
Original MODEMs did n't start at 150baud , they started at 75baud , but lazy authors write lazy articles .
The acoustic-coupler worked great at 300baud ( TI Silent 700 ) , miserably at 600baud , and terribly at 1200baud .
Still this technology made itself obsolete .
People were tying up VOICE channels on the PSTN switches and Telcos hated it , so they created DSL to take data off the voice channels .
E P.S .
The word MODEM ( as the article indicates ) represents MOdulatorDEModulator .
Hence it should be capitalized .
This is also try of enCOderDECoder ( CODEC ) .
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article confuses baud rate and bps.
No MODEM using the standards indicated has worked at any speed greater than 2400 baud.
(That means 2400 transitions per second).
Many MODEMs work at 4800, 9600, 14400, 56000 bps (bits per second, or pieces of digital information per second).
What the MODEMs have done is use the ability to deliver multiple bits per such transition using FSK, QFSK,QAM, etc.
MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed, and did not buffer.
Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques.
Original MODEMs didn't start at 150baud, they started at 75baud, but lazy authors write lazy articles.
The acoustic-coupler worked great at 300baud (TI Silent 700), miserably at 600baud, and terribly at 1200baud.
Still this technology made itself obsolete.
People were tying up VOICE channels on the PSTN switches and Telcos hated it,
so they created DSL to take data off the voice channels.
E
P.S.
The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.
Hence it should be capitalized.
This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563570</id>
	<title>I forget the details at this point</title>
	<author>gelfling</author>
	<datestamp>1261934220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But my USR 56kbaud modems were never able to exceed 33kbaud on my home POTS lines. The phone co, Southern Bell explained to be it had something to do with how their 'remote' CO was built. A remote CO is essentially a bunch of switches nailed to a telephone pole where there is a large cluster of endpoints more than 15 (or 18?) thousand feet from the nearest CO. In either case the remote CO, functioning like a giant glorified midspan repeater could not handle the constellation pattern of 56kbaud. Cheaped out, in other words. I suspect this had something to do with them trying to get me to buy FAKE ADSL - which, actually wasn't ADSL but instead they took 2 8bit ISDN lines, bonded them together for a single sync 128kbps channel. Of course everytime you picked up the phone, you lost half of your data bandwidth.. I never did get a good answer why they couldn't use two 7+1 channels with single sideband signaling for voice...oh well.</p><p>Well now we have cable and U-Verse and all sorts of stuff and my kids don't know what the modem handshake sound is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my USR 56kbaud modems were never able to exceed 33kbaud on my home POTS lines .
The phone co , Southern Bell explained to be it had something to do with how their 'remote ' CO was built .
A remote CO is essentially a bunch of switches nailed to a telephone pole where there is a large cluster of endpoints more than 15 ( or 18 ?
) thousand feet from the nearest CO. In either case the remote CO , functioning like a giant glorified midspan repeater could not handle the constellation pattern of 56kbaud .
Cheaped out , in other words .
I suspect this had something to do with them trying to get me to buy FAKE ADSL - which , actually was n't ADSL but instead they took 2 8bit ISDN lines , bonded them together for a single sync 128kbps channel .
Of course everytime you picked up the phone , you lost half of your data bandwidth.. I never did get a good answer why they could n't use two 7 + 1 channels with single sideband signaling for voice...oh well.Well now we have cable and U-Verse and all sorts of stuff and my kids do n't know what the modem handshake sound is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my USR 56kbaud modems were never able to exceed 33kbaud on my home POTS lines.
The phone co, Southern Bell explained to be it had something to do with how their 'remote' CO was built.
A remote CO is essentially a bunch of switches nailed to a telephone pole where there is a large cluster of endpoints more than 15 (or 18?
) thousand feet from the nearest CO. In either case the remote CO, functioning like a giant glorified midspan repeater could not handle the constellation pattern of 56kbaud.
Cheaped out, in other words.
I suspect this had something to do with them trying to get me to buy FAKE ADSL - which, actually wasn't ADSL but instead they took 2 8bit ISDN lines, bonded them together for a single sync 128kbps channel.
Of course everytime you picked up the phone, you lost half of your data bandwidth.. I never did get a good answer why they couldn't use two 7+1 channels with single sideband signaling for voice...oh well.Well now we have cable and U-Verse and all sorts of stuff and my kids don't know what the modem handshake sound is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563202</id>
	<title>Re:Lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1261930140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interestingly enough, it seems one is heading the same way with SSD. that is, each physical storage "unit" will have multiple states, so that one store multiple bit pr "unit".</p><p>if it can scale the same way your describing modems, things should be interesting in a couple of years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interestingly enough , it seems one is heading the same way with SSD .
that is , each physical storage " unit " will have multiple states , so that one store multiple bit pr " unit " .if it can scale the same way your describing modems , things should be interesting in a couple of years ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interestingly enough, it seems one is heading the same way with SSD.
that is, each physical storage "unit" will have multiple states, so that one store multiple bit pr "unit".if it can scale the same way your describing modems, things should be interesting in a couple of years ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563852</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, slight correction on the ISDN speeds.  Yes, even in the US you could get 2*64k.  But if your phone company was incompetent, they would route your ISDN through a voice trunk line and it would drop to 2*56k.  If you spent hours on the phone with them, they would fix the problem and route your call properly, and you'd have 2*64k again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , slight correction on the ISDN speeds .
Yes , even in the US you could get 2 * 64k .
But if your phone company was incompetent , they would route your ISDN through a voice trunk line and it would drop to 2 * 56k .
If you spent hours on the phone with them , they would fix the problem and route your call properly , and you 'd have 2 * 64k again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, slight correction on the ISDN speeds.
Yes, even in the US you could get 2*64k.
But if your phone company was incompetent, they would route your ISDN through a voice trunk line and it would drop to 2*56k.
If you spent hours on the phone with them, they would fix the problem and route your call properly, and you'd have 2*64k again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565072</id>
	<title>Generation gap...</title>
	<author>esarjeant</author>
	<datestamp>1261905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that hasn't been mentioned is how little today's college graduates will know about modems. I think this goes hand-in-hand with using analog tape recorders to store program data, this was quite common in the early 1980's and together with my 300 baud modem it really helped to demystify storage and electronic communications for me.</p><p>Go ahead and shop for a new PC with a modem in. Good luck. Everything has a network board in it now, with the exception of FAX machines the modem has quickly been relegated to attics and basements everywhere. Tape drives aren't doing much better these days, it seems direct to disk is getting to be the cheapest route.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that has n't been mentioned is how little today 's college graduates will know about modems .
I think this goes hand-in-hand with using analog tape recorders to store program data , this was quite common in the early 1980 's and together with my 300 baud modem it really helped to demystify storage and electronic communications for me.Go ahead and shop for a new PC with a modem in .
Good luck .
Everything has a network board in it now , with the exception of FAX machines the modem has quickly been relegated to attics and basements everywhere .
Tape drives are n't doing much better these days , it seems direct to disk is getting to be the cheapest route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that hasn't been mentioned is how little today's college graduates will know about modems.
I think this goes hand-in-hand with using analog tape recorders to store program data, this was quite common in the early 1980's and together with my 300 baud modem it really helped to demystify storage and electronic communications for me.Go ahead and shop for a new PC with a modem in.
Good luck.
Everything has a network board in it now, with the exception of FAX machines the modem has quickly been relegated to attics and basements everywhere.
Tape drives aren't doing much better these days, it seems direct to disk is getting to be the cheapest route.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1261856700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very well said. But you forgot about 14400 and 19200. Man, I sure was in heaven Christmas morning of 1992 or 1993 when I opened my Zoom 14.4k modem. Naturally it amazed me, and I thought there would never be anything much faster, aside from the "exotic" 19.2k modems that none of the local boards or my friends had. I think Zyxel and a USR model or two would do 16.8k. 1200 and 2400 were never acceptable again, though 14.4k meant speed to spare! Then a year or two later we thought 28.8k was near a theoretical speed limit for twisted-pair copper, 33.6k used dirty tricks, 56k was unrealistic and not possible for a BBS, 64k/128k ISDN was crazy expensive, and ADSL and SDSL were futuristic 21st century vaporware. Today's DSL and cable speeds were unfathomable 15 years ago, not to mention optical fiber which seems to be getting rolled out everywhere except where I live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well said .
But you forgot about 14400 and 19200 .
Man , I sure was in heaven Christmas morning of 1992 or 1993 when I opened my Zoom 14.4k modem .
Naturally it amazed me , and I thought there would never be anything much faster , aside from the " exotic " 19.2k modems that none of the local boards or my friends had .
I think Zyxel and a USR model or two would do 16.8k .
1200 and 2400 were never acceptable again , though 14.4k meant speed to spare !
Then a year or two later we thought 28.8k was near a theoretical speed limit for twisted-pair copper , 33.6k used dirty tricks , 56k was unrealistic and not possible for a BBS , 64k/128k ISDN was crazy expensive , and ADSL and SDSL were futuristic 21st century vaporware .
Today 's DSL and cable speeds were unfathomable 15 years ago , not to mention optical fiber which seems to be getting rolled out everywhere except where I live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well said.
But you forgot about 14400 and 19200.
Man, I sure was in heaven Christmas morning of 1992 or 1993 when I opened my Zoom 14.4k modem.
Naturally it amazed me, and I thought there would never be anything much faster, aside from the "exotic" 19.2k modems that none of the local boards or my friends had.
I think Zyxel and a USR model or two would do 16.8k.
1200 and 2400 were never acceptable again, though 14.4k meant speed to spare!
Then a year or two later we thought 28.8k was near a theoretical speed limit for twisted-pair copper, 33.6k used dirty tricks, 56k was unrealistic and not possible for a BBS, 64k/128k ISDN was crazy expensive, and ADSL and SDSL were futuristic 21st century vaporware.
Today's DSL and cable speeds were unfathomable 15 years ago, not to mention optical fiber which seems to be getting rolled out everywhere except where I live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561446</id>
	<title>SMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261946940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems, consider that a letter consists of eight bits. A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second."  That's about the same speed as text messaging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems , consider that a letter consists of eight bits .
A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second .
" That 's about the same speed as text messaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "To grab a bit of perspective on the actual speed of these modems, consider that a letter consists of eight bits.
A speed of 300 bits meant that this modem could only send out around 30 letters a second.
"  That's about the same speed as text messaging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621146</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of my first Linux Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230897780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject line above. ihuntrocks = merely another USER (only with a better password).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject line above .
ihuntrocks = merely another USER ( only with a better password ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject line above.
ihuntrocks = merely another USER (only with a better password).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560788</id>
	<title>Written by someone born in the 90s?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261849740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Otherwise how could you think that v.32bis (14.4k) was introduced in 1980? I had to look it up to see what the hell they were on about, apparently the 1980 figure comes from a break through channel coding paper written in 1980 at IBM that didn't even get passed around for a few years. The reality is that the public had to wait nearly a decade before those techniques were out of the lab, and a few more years before a standard was ratified. Trying to figure out what niche this article fills - the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem" title="wikipedia.org">wiki article on modems</a> [wikipedia.org] does a far better job at going over the same info. Hell, the author of TFA even put an old-time(tm) bw filter on a photo from the late 80s trying to make it seem like a shot with a laptop came from the 60s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise how could you think that v.32bis ( 14.4k ) was introduced in 1980 ?
I had to look it up to see what the hell they were on about , apparently the 1980 figure comes from a break through channel coding paper written in 1980 at IBM that did n't even get passed around for a few years .
The reality is that the public had to wait nearly a decade before those techniques were out of the lab , and a few more years before a standard was ratified .
Trying to figure out what niche this article fills - the wiki article on modems [ wikipedia.org ] does a far better job at going over the same info .
Hell , the author of TFA even put an old-time ( tm ) bw filter on a photo from the late 80s trying to make it seem like a shot with a laptop came from the 60s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise how could you think that v.32bis (14.4k) was introduced in 1980?
I had to look it up to see what the hell they were on about, apparently the 1980 figure comes from a break through channel coding paper written in 1980 at IBM that didn't even get passed around for a few years.
The reality is that the public had to wait nearly a decade before those techniques were out of the lab, and a few more years before a standard was ratified.
Trying to figure out what niche this article fills - the wiki article on modems [wikipedia.org] does a far better job at going over the same info.
Hell, the author of TFA even put an old-time(tm) bw filter on a photo from the late 80s trying to make it seem like a shot with a laptop came from the 60s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561140</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261855800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to let everyone in the house know you were on the "modem". This meant, sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house</i> <br>
<br>
Ah, smart.  My solution was to just bellow really loudly that everyone should stay off the phone so I could use the modem.  This was usually followed by my parents telling me to use the intercom instead of yelling, or telling me to stop tying up the phones, or asking if I'd done my homework yet.  <br>
<br>
<i>You also couldn't tie up the phone for hours on end. There was very very few people that had an answering service<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... You also had to remember, if you were one of those people that had it, disable call waiting</i> <br>
<br>
No way man.  The call-waiting thing was, to me, a feature.  It meant that I could assure my parents that I wouldn't be tying up the phone lines and preventing people from calling.  It was an enormous hassle when the thing disconnected but it meant my parents couldn't use that as an excuse to tell me not to use it.  <br>
<br>
When I was 14 or so my parents felt comfortable enough to leave me home alone for four days when they went out of town.  Still, they asked my uncle to check up on me periodically.  Of course, since I didn't care about missing calls, I fired up the modem, logged on, and kept the call-waiting disabled.  This meant that my uncle got a busy signal for a day and a half when he was trying to call to see how I was doing, until he finally drove over to see if I was just tying up the line with the modem, or if I was dead on the floor after a brutal break-in that knocked the phone off the hook.  <br>
<br>
Pointless nostalgia now concluded.  More pointless nostalgia on this topic may be found <a href="http://mirrorshades.org/wc/2007/07/back\_in\_my\_day.shtml" title="mirrorshades.org">here</a> [mirrorshades.org] if anyone's interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to let everyone in the house know you were on the " modem " .
This meant , sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house Ah , smart .
My solution was to just bellow really loudly that everyone should stay off the phone so I could use the modem .
This was usually followed by my parents telling me to use the intercom instead of yelling , or telling me to stop tying up the phones , or asking if I 'd done my homework yet .
You also could n't tie up the phone for hours on end .
There was very very few people that had an answering service ... You also had to remember , if you were one of those people that had it , disable call waiting No way man .
The call-waiting thing was , to me , a feature .
It meant that I could assure my parents that I would n't be tying up the phone lines and preventing people from calling .
It was an enormous hassle when the thing disconnected but it meant my parents could n't use that as an excuse to tell me not to use it .
When I was 14 or so my parents felt comfortable enough to leave me home alone for four days when they went out of town .
Still , they asked my uncle to check up on me periodically .
Of course , since I did n't care about missing calls , I fired up the modem , logged on , and kept the call-waiting disabled .
This meant that my uncle got a busy signal for a day and a half when he was trying to call to see how I was doing , until he finally drove over to see if I was just tying up the line with the modem , or if I was dead on the floor after a brutal break-in that knocked the phone off the hook .
Pointless nostalgia now concluded .
More pointless nostalgia on this topic may be found here [ mirrorshades.org ] if anyone 's interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem with using modems was that you had to let everyone in the house know you were on the "modem".
This meant, sticking post-it notes to every phone in the house 

Ah, smart.
My solution was to just bellow really loudly that everyone should stay off the phone so I could use the modem.
This was usually followed by my parents telling me to use the intercom instead of yelling, or telling me to stop tying up the phones, or asking if I'd done my homework yet.
You also couldn't tie up the phone for hours on end.
There was very very few people that had an answering service ... You also had to remember, if you were one of those people that had it, disable call waiting 

No way man.
The call-waiting thing was, to me, a feature.
It meant that I could assure my parents that I wouldn't be tying up the phone lines and preventing people from calling.
It was an enormous hassle when the thing disconnected but it meant my parents couldn't use that as an excuse to tell me not to use it.
When I was 14 or so my parents felt comfortable enough to leave me home alone for four days when they went out of town.
Still, they asked my uncle to check up on me periodically.
Of course, since I didn't care about missing calls, I fired up the modem, logged on, and kept the call-waiting disabled.
This meant that my uncle got a busy signal for a day and a half when he was trying to call to see how I was doing, until he finally drove over to see if I was just tying up the line with the modem, or if I was dead on the floor after a brutal break-in that knocked the phone off the hook.
Pointless nostalgia now concluded.
More pointless nostalgia on this topic may be found here [mirrorshades.org] if anyone's interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30574058</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a big reason no one does this anymore is the sheer complexity of modern things. I am fairly sure I could diagnose why a dishwasher from the 1970's is broken, at least on a component level, they are fairly simple things and don't involve any black box IC's or the like. Not only that, but they were built to be disassembled, at least a lot more so than today where manufacturers go out of their way to use esoteric screw heads to prevent you from getting at the insides. Also, the cost of most electronics these days makes it far more efficient to just replace the whole unit than spend time diagnosing and repairing it in most cases. Lots of little changes in society made lots of things that you speak of impractical- dirt cheap produce, and the annoyance of complying with environmental regulations make growing tomatoes and changing oil not worth my time.</p><p>This is especially true with cars. You now need special equipment just to read the diagnostic information, and there are now many more lines of code working under your hood than nuts and bolts- and you don't have access to that code. By contrast, I owned a 2002 Kawasaki Ninja 250, which is carbureted and 99\% unchanged in design since it first rolled off the assembly line in the 1980's, and it was easy to work on and diagnose (and also quite finicky and high maintenance- they don't make them like that anymore for a reason!).</p><p>In general, at least in my area, most people have a lot more money than time, and they would rather spend the precious free time they have with their friends and family than spending an aggravating afternoon getting their hands cut up disassembling a dishwasher. Things change- your parents probably said the same thing about their sons and daughters not knowing how to darn a sock or field dress an animal.</p><p>-K</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a big reason no one does this anymore is the sheer complexity of modern things .
I am fairly sure I could diagnose why a dishwasher from the 1970 's is broken , at least on a component level , they are fairly simple things and do n't involve any black box IC 's or the like .
Not only that , but they were built to be disassembled , at least a lot more so than today where manufacturers go out of their way to use esoteric screw heads to prevent you from getting at the insides .
Also , the cost of most electronics these days makes it far more efficient to just replace the whole unit than spend time diagnosing and repairing it in most cases .
Lots of little changes in society made lots of things that you speak of impractical- dirt cheap produce , and the annoyance of complying with environmental regulations make growing tomatoes and changing oil not worth my time.This is especially true with cars .
You now need special equipment just to read the diagnostic information , and there are now many more lines of code working under your hood than nuts and bolts- and you do n't have access to that code .
By contrast , I owned a 2002 Kawasaki Ninja 250 , which is carbureted and 99 \ % unchanged in design since it first rolled off the assembly line in the 1980 's , and it was easy to work on and diagnose ( and also quite finicky and high maintenance- they do n't make them like that anymore for a reason !
) .In general , at least in my area , most people have a lot more money than time , and they would rather spend the precious free time they have with their friends and family than spending an aggravating afternoon getting their hands cut up disassembling a dishwasher .
Things change- your parents probably said the same thing about their sons and daughters not knowing how to darn a sock or field dress an animal.-K</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a big reason no one does this anymore is the sheer complexity of modern things.
I am fairly sure I could diagnose why a dishwasher from the 1970's is broken, at least on a component level, they are fairly simple things and don't involve any black box IC's or the like.
Not only that, but they were built to be disassembled, at least a lot more so than today where manufacturers go out of their way to use esoteric screw heads to prevent you from getting at the insides.
Also, the cost of most electronics these days makes it far more efficient to just replace the whole unit than spend time diagnosing and repairing it in most cases.
Lots of little changes in society made lots of things that you speak of impractical- dirt cheap produce, and the annoyance of complying with environmental regulations make growing tomatoes and changing oil not worth my time.This is especially true with cars.
You now need special equipment just to read the diagnostic information, and there are now many more lines of code working under your hood than nuts and bolts- and you don't have access to that code.
By contrast, I owned a 2002 Kawasaki Ninja 250, which is carbureted and 99\% unchanged in design since it first rolled off the assembly line in the 1980's, and it was easy to work on and diagnose (and also quite finicky and high maintenance- they don't make them like that anymore for a reason!
).In general, at least in my area, most people have a lot more money than time, and they would rather spend the precious free time they have with their friends and family than spending an aggravating afternoon getting their hands cut up disassembling a dishwasher.
Things change- your parents probably said the same thing about their sons and daughters not knowing how to darn a sock or field dress an animal.-K</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764</id>
	<title>Lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated...</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261849500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In "The African Queen," Katherine Hepburn's character asks Humphrey Bogart's character to make a torpedo. Bogart's character says something to the effect that "Lady, there ain't nothing so complicated as the inside of a torpedo. It's got gyroscopes, compressed air chambers, compensating cylinders..."</p><p>I remember once reading details about just how the signals in a 1200 bps modem worked... and modems at higher rates. It was just jaw-dropping how sophisticated it was. The reason why there was a distinction between "bps" and "baud" is that "baud" refers to the number of times per second the signal changes. Well, a 1200 bps modem only changes its signal 600 times a second... but it uses four different combinations of frequency and phase, so each signal combination signals two bits. That's bad enough, but the combinations literally increase exponentially. The 9600 bps modem actually requires the receiver to sense and distinguish sixteen different analog combinations (so that it can encode four bits at a time).</p><p>At the time I figured they had to be close to the theoretical limit, which depends on the bandwidth and the noise level. A phone line is only good up to about 3000 Hz. so the 2400 baud rate of a 9600 bps modem is changing about as fast as it can. The rest depends on how noisy the line is.</p><p>Theoretically, of course, you can signal at an infinite rate on a perfectly noise-free channel. Just send 3.141592653 volts on the end and measure it with a ten-digit digital voltmeter and, voila! You're sending ten digits at once. Except there aren't any ten-digit voltmeters.</p><p>I was frankly flabbergasted when they managed to cram 56 kilobits per second into a phone line. Of course, the 56 kb modems never really ran at that speed--they were always falling back to lower speeds because the phone lines were too noisy. Then they added compression, which didn't do much good because the ZIP files and JPGs you were sending were already compressed. In reality they were trying to cram 56 kilobits of data into a 33 kilobit bag, but it was amazing that it even worked some of the time.</p><p>But, lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated as the inside of a modem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In " The African Queen , " Katherine Hepburn 's character asks Humphrey Bogart 's character to make a torpedo .
Bogart 's character says something to the effect that " Lady , there ai n't nothing so complicated as the inside of a torpedo .
It 's got gyroscopes , compressed air chambers , compensating cylinders... " I remember once reading details about just how the signals in a 1200 bps modem worked... and modems at higher rates .
It was just jaw-dropping how sophisticated it was .
The reason why there was a distinction between " bps " and " baud " is that " baud " refers to the number of times per second the signal changes .
Well , a 1200 bps modem only changes its signal 600 times a second... but it uses four different combinations of frequency and phase , so each signal combination signals two bits .
That 's bad enough , but the combinations literally increase exponentially .
The 9600 bps modem actually requires the receiver to sense and distinguish sixteen different analog combinations ( so that it can encode four bits at a time ) .At the time I figured they had to be close to the theoretical limit , which depends on the bandwidth and the noise level .
A phone line is only good up to about 3000 Hz .
so the 2400 baud rate of a 9600 bps modem is changing about as fast as it can .
The rest depends on how noisy the line is.Theoretically , of course , you can signal at an infinite rate on a perfectly noise-free channel .
Just send 3.141592653 volts on the end and measure it with a ten-digit digital voltmeter and , voila !
You 're sending ten digits at once .
Except there are n't any ten-digit voltmeters.I was frankly flabbergasted when they managed to cram 56 kilobits per second into a phone line .
Of course , the 56 kb modems never really ran at that speed--they were always falling back to lower speeds because the phone lines were too noisy .
Then they added compression , which did n't do much good because the ZIP files and JPGs you were sending were already compressed .
In reality they were trying to cram 56 kilobits of data into a 33 kilobit bag , but it was amazing that it even worked some of the time.But , lady , there ai n't nothin ' so complicated as the inside of a modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "The African Queen," Katherine Hepburn's character asks Humphrey Bogart's character to make a torpedo.
Bogart's character says something to the effect that "Lady, there ain't nothing so complicated as the inside of a torpedo.
It's got gyroscopes, compressed air chambers, compensating cylinders..."I remember once reading details about just how the signals in a 1200 bps modem worked... and modems at higher rates.
It was just jaw-dropping how sophisticated it was.
The reason why there was a distinction between "bps" and "baud" is that "baud" refers to the number of times per second the signal changes.
Well, a 1200 bps modem only changes its signal 600 times a second... but it uses four different combinations of frequency and phase, so each signal combination signals two bits.
That's bad enough, but the combinations literally increase exponentially.
The 9600 bps modem actually requires the receiver to sense and distinguish sixteen different analog combinations (so that it can encode four bits at a time).At the time I figured they had to be close to the theoretical limit, which depends on the bandwidth and the noise level.
A phone line is only good up to about 3000 Hz.
so the 2400 baud rate of a 9600 bps modem is changing about as fast as it can.
The rest depends on how noisy the line is.Theoretically, of course, you can signal at an infinite rate on a perfectly noise-free channel.
Just send 3.141592653 volts on the end and measure it with a ten-digit digital voltmeter and, voila!
You're sending ten digits at once.
Except there aren't any ten-digit voltmeters.I was frankly flabbergasted when they managed to cram 56 kilobits per second into a phone line.
Of course, the 56 kb modems never really ran at that speed--they were always falling back to lower speeds because the phone lines were too noisy.
Then they added compression, which didn't do much good because the ZIP files and JPGs you were sending were already compressed.
In reality they were trying to cram 56 kilobits of data into a 33 kilobit bag, but it was amazing that it even worked some of the time.But, lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated as the inside of a modem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561918</id>
	<title>Re:Lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261909860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I regularly got 53333 bits per second connections over a phone line. And of course nowadays, the modulation schemes used are quite sophisticated, using all sorts of digital signal processing and high-order math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I regularly got 53333 bits per second connections over a phone line .
And of course nowadays , the modulation schemes used are quite sophisticated , using all sorts of digital signal processing and high-order math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I regularly got 53333 bits per second connections over a phone line.
And of course nowadays, the modulation schemes used are quite sophisticated, using all sorts of digital signal processing and high-order math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561790</id>
	<title>Init strings</title>
	<author>imidan</author>
	<datestamp>1261907880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, remember writing init strings? That was a skill. Every new modem you got, you sat down and figured out how it interpeted the AT codes. Then, you had to fine-tune the string. How long did your line need dialtone before you dialed? How fast could you dial the numbers (in ms)? Of all my memories of dial-up, I think some of my best are of tweaking the init string so you could dial in as fast as possible. After all, there was a good chance you'd get a busy signal; you need to hang up and redial ASAP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , remember writing init strings ?
That was a skill .
Every new modem you got , you sat down and figured out how it interpeted the AT codes .
Then , you had to fine-tune the string .
How long did your line need dialtone before you dialed ?
How fast could you dial the numbers ( in ms ) ?
Of all my memories of dial-up , I think some of my best are of tweaking the init string so you could dial in as fast as possible .
After all , there was a good chance you 'd get a busy signal ; you need to hang up and redial ASAP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, remember writing init strings?
That was a skill.
Every new modem you got, you sat down and figured out how it interpeted the AT codes.
Then, you had to fine-tune the string.
How long did your line need dialtone before you dialed?
How fast could you dial the numbers (in ms)?
Of all my memories of dial-up, I think some of my best are of tweaking the init string so you could dial in as fast as possible.
After all, there was a good chance you'd get a busy signal; you need to hang up and redial ASAP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561954</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261910280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was using dialup until about 3 years ago, when I moved into a place that offered free WiFi. Regarding modem quality, I had repeated trouble with USR's modems. I believe it was because they didn't use an isolation transformer between the phone line and the modem electronics, resulting in voltage differences between the phone and ground causing noise. I once made an RS-232 isolator using a bunch of optocouplers, and that elimianted the problem. I later got some of the Diamond modems which properly used an isolation transformer, and never had a problem with them. Before I got them, I had actually preferred using my older 33.6 kbps USR modem, because it used a transformer as well. I couldn't believe that USR would skimp on their 56K modems like that, but there you go. BTW, their isolation scheme was cute: they coupled the phone line circuitry with the rest of the modem via small capacitors. Even the power supplied to the phone line portion was through a capacitor, presumably as a high-frequency square wave that the phone line side rectified. This eliminates any DC coupling, but doesn't help when the voltage potential between the phone side and ground changes suddenly, as was happening in my case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was using dialup until about 3 years ago , when I moved into a place that offered free WiFi .
Regarding modem quality , I had repeated trouble with USR 's modems .
I believe it was because they did n't use an isolation transformer between the phone line and the modem electronics , resulting in voltage differences between the phone and ground causing noise .
I once made an RS-232 isolator using a bunch of optocouplers , and that elimianted the problem .
I later got some of the Diamond modems which properly used an isolation transformer , and never had a problem with them .
Before I got them , I had actually preferred using my older 33.6 kbps USR modem , because it used a transformer as well .
I could n't believe that USR would skimp on their 56K modems like that , but there you go .
BTW , their isolation scheme was cute : they coupled the phone line circuitry with the rest of the modem via small capacitors .
Even the power supplied to the phone line portion was through a capacitor , presumably as a high-frequency square wave that the phone line side rectified .
This eliminates any DC coupling , but does n't help when the voltage potential between the phone side and ground changes suddenly , as was happening in my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was using dialup until about 3 years ago, when I moved into a place that offered free WiFi.
Regarding modem quality, I had repeated trouble with USR's modems.
I believe it was because they didn't use an isolation transformer between the phone line and the modem electronics, resulting in voltage differences between the phone and ground causing noise.
I once made an RS-232 isolator using a bunch of optocouplers, and that elimianted the problem.
I later got some of the Diamond modems which properly used an isolation transformer, and never had a problem with them.
Before I got them, I had actually preferred using my older 33.6 kbps USR modem, because it used a transformer as well.
I couldn't believe that USR would skimp on their 56K modems like that, but there you go.
BTW, their isolation scheme was cute: they coupled the phone line circuitry with the rest of the modem via small capacitors.
Even the power supplied to the phone line portion was through a capacitor, presumably as a high-frequency square wave that the phone line side rectified.
This eliminates any DC coupling, but doesn't help when the voltage potential between the phone side and ground changes suddenly, as was happening in my case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573966</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>amplex</author>
	<datestamp>1262029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work.   I attribute this to several things:</p><p>(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.</p></div><p>You think a much lower percentage NOW know how systems work? Are you serious? Back in 1980 it's maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00001\% of the total population or less that truly understand fundamental electricity, how squarewaves flow through chips turning things off and on in sequence, on certain pins at certain rates to achieve certain functions, programming, etc.. mostly because of the cost/obscurity of these systems, and you pretty much had to be a scientist to find practical use in one.  Now you can throw a rock out your window and likely hit someone who understands these concepts (maybe because I live next to a state college its more likely).. Mainly because of widespread access to information and the internet, anyone halfway interested can learn how things work. But I highly doubt the percentage of people that understand bits and bytes is LESS than it was in 1980, one of the first years pc hardware became standardized.  But I can see your point in that before the standardization, everyone who was interested DID have to know how it worked pretty much. Nowdays to 90\% of the population its like, hey magician, fix my computer, do your voodoo tricks and make my internet work again... An old computer to me is still an Imsai, first one I ever laid eyes on.  I can remember looking up at greenscreen/orange monochrome monitors for as long as I can remember. My first was an 8088 PC-XT so I might still be a youngun to you. But I guess you're right, when you had to buy your own chips/components, solder your boards together and program your own 'OS', you are more likely to understand the internals of a computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work .
I attribute this to several things : ( 1 ) It 's harder to * get at * the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.You think a much lower percentage NOW know how systems work ?
Are you serious ?
Back in 1980 it 's maybe .00001 \ % of the total population or less that truly understand fundamental electricity , how squarewaves flow through chips turning things off and on in sequence , on certain pins at certain rates to achieve certain functions , programming , etc.. mostly because of the cost/obscurity of these systems , and you pretty much had to be a scientist to find practical use in one .
Now you can throw a rock out your window and likely hit someone who understands these concepts ( maybe because I live next to a state college its more likely ) .. Mainly because of widespread access to information and the internet , anyone halfway interested can learn how things work .
But I highly doubt the percentage of people that understand bits and bytes is LESS than it was in 1980 , one of the first years pc hardware became standardized .
But I can see your point in that before the standardization , everyone who was interested DID have to know how it worked pretty much .
Nowdays to 90 \ % of the population its like , hey magician , fix my computer , do your voodoo tricks and make my internet work again... An old computer to me is still an Imsai , first one I ever laid eyes on .
I can remember looking up at greenscreen/orange monochrome monitors for as long as I can remember .
My first was an 8088 PC-XT so I might still be a youngun to you .
But I guess you 're right , when you had to buy your own chips/components , solder your boards together and program your own 'OS ' , you are more likely to understand the internals of a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what certainly seems true is that a much lower percentage of people now know the nuts and bolts of how things work.
I attribute this to several things:(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.You think a much lower percentage NOW know how systems work?
Are you serious?
Back in 1980 it's maybe .00001\% of the total population or less that truly understand fundamental electricity, how squarewaves flow through chips turning things off and on in sequence, on certain pins at certain rates to achieve certain functions, programming, etc.. mostly because of the cost/obscurity of these systems, and you pretty much had to be a scientist to find practical use in one.
Now you can throw a rock out your window and likely hit someone who understands these concepts (maybe because I live next to a state college its more likely).. Mainly because of widespread access to information and the internet, anyone halfway interested can learn how things work.
But I highly doubt the percentage of people that understand bits and bytes is LESS than it was in 1980, one of the first years pc hardware became standardized.
But I can see your point in that before the standardization, everyone who was interested DID have to know how it worked pretty much.
Nowdays to 90\% of the population its like, hey magician, fix my computer, do your voodoo tricks and make my internet work again... An old computer to me is still an Imsai, first one I ever laid eyes on.
I can remember looking up at greenscreen/orange monochrome monitors for as long as I can remember.
My first was an 8088 PC-XT so I might still be a youngun to you.
But I guess you're right, when you had to buy your own chips/components, solder your boards together and program your own 'OS', you are more likely to understand the internals of a computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563248</id>
	<title>Re:Parkinson's Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261930680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yabbut you forgot the 18.6M of JavaCrap whose sole purpose is to prevent folks from seeing more than one paragraph at a time, oh, and to set more cookies than a economy-sized bag of Oreos, tracking every step you make thereafter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yabbut you forgot the 18.6M of JavaCrap whose sole purpose is to prevent folks from seeing more than one paragraph at a time , oh , and to set more cookies than a economy-sized bag of Oreos , tracking every step you make thereafter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yabbut you forgot the 18.6M of JavaCrap whose sole purpose is to prevent folks from seeing more than one paragraph at a time, oh, and to set more cookies than a economy-sized bag of Oreos, tracking every step you make thereafter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561258</id>
	<title>Missed the whole USR Courier saga</title>
	<author>djrobxx</author>
	<datestamp>1261857480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't recall V.42 / MNP being popular with 2400 baud modems.  The data rate was so slow that enabling error correction resulted in too much latency when "browsing" text.   MNP could be done in software also, and a few comm programs offered it.

They missed the whole Courier HST vs. v.32bis battle.    The v.32 and v.32bis modems were way more expensive than USR's modems for a long time because implementing that standard required an echo canceling chip.   This allowed full speed bidirectional transfers where USR's didn't.  Most didn't care because they weren't usually doing both upload and download at the same time.

That is, unless they were using Bimodem, which allowed two-way transfers.   And you could chat with the SysOp during the transfer!   Good times, good times...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall V.42 / MNP being popular with 2400 baud modems .
The data rate was so slow that enabling error correction resulted in too much latency when " browsing " text .
MNP could be done in software also , and a few comm programs offered it .
They missed the whole Courier HST vs. v.32bis battle .
The v.32 and v.32bis modems were way more expensive than USR 's modems for a long time because implementing that standard required an echo canceling chip .
This allowed full speed bidirectional transfers where USR 's did n't .
Most did n't care because they were n't usually doing both upload and download at the same time .
That is , unless they were using Bimodem , which allowed two-way transfers .
And you could chat with the SysOp during the transfer !
Good times , good times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall V.42 / MNP being popular with 2400 baud modems.
The data rate was so slow that enabling error correction resulted in too much latency when "browsing" text.
MNP could be done in software also, and a few comm programs offered it.
They missed the whole Courier HST vs. v.32bis battle.
The v.32 and v.32bis modems were way more expensive than USR's modems for a long time because implementing that standard required an echo canceling chip.
This allowed full speed bidirectional transfers where USR's didn't.
Most didn't care because they weren't usually doing both upload and download at the same time.
That is, unless they were using Bimodem, which allowed two-way transfers.
And you could chat with the SysOp during the transfer!
Good times, good times...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621448</id>
	<title>Why'd you run, user with a better password?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230902400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; see how "the user with a better password" ran from this -&gt;</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Typical - he did just like most "users with a better password" usually go and do: Run! Especially when they shoot their pie hole's off &amp; can't back up their b.s.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Care to show us your PHD in English, you undereducated little dolt?</p><p>What's terribly amusing here, is WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or, are you showing others differently now? Not.</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>First of all: The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what's needed, but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE (especially in this very case) &amp;, one that's easily obtained (see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example, &amp; the mvps.org model's probably the best one listed imo @ least, because it's regularly maintained) &amp; easily maintained as well (text editor, anyone?)...</p><p>So, once more? Care to prove me wrong?? Why don't you "grow a pair", &amp; back up your b.s. I quote above:</p><p><b>Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY "wrong" here, or, in the URL above, and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple, easy, &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s. here</b> (and I think you KNOW it, &amp; this is why you outright RAN, you moronic little coward).</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>LOL: AND, who the hell are you?</p><p>Clearly, based on your lack of reply? Well - You're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER "USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD" &amp; that's it, "Mr. Admin", lol... so, please:</p><p>Don't even TRY to be "clever" with me, OR "look down your nose @ me" you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you, and again - I think you KNOW it, because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong (I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here).</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"However, your solution isn't exactly flawless"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Well, once more?</p><p>Tell me where it is "flawed" &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies, literally in seconds, with very easy work-arounds (ones that are probably way, Way, WAY over your undereducated "user with a better password" dim brain's capability to come up with yourself).</p><p>I'll be waiting...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>You're the one calling the names FIRST, in the URL above no less as proof thereof, you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT (lol, "user with a better password"), &amp; now?</p><p>NOW, I am only returning the favor, in kind, &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.</p><p>After all - you running like a scared little "beyotch" now after I asked you to show me where my solution is supposedly "flawed", &amp; especially in the case of the NetBIOS problem...</p><p>(Using HOSTS as a "total security solution", dummy - I never ONCE said it was that. It's only a partial one, it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone, but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure, easily maintained, &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS (on a very simple principal no less of "you can't get burned if you can't go into a fire" basically))?</p><p>Well, after all your "big talk", which I quote now?</p><p>Please... you're only proving my point for me. Keep running "big talking user with a better password only"...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Mod me down for honesty, I won't care."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Uhm, "dumpkopf"? I am the one being honest here, and calling YOU what you are, first of all.</p><p>In case you hadn't noticed, I post as "A/C" - we ac's can't dispense "mod points".</p><p>SECONDLY, all your kind here has (the "wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user" lol) , is your effete little "mod points", but apparently, based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here OR in the URL above?</p><p>That's really ALL you have (and your big talk, plus your "better password" user, lol, as a mere "admin").</p><p>LASTLY, as far as "honesty"? You ran 'beyotch', like a scared child, despite all your 'big talk' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a "big talker" who can't back up his b.s., &amp; nothing more...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>At this point?</p><p><b>Everyone reading here knows 1 thing: YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR "BIG TALK"</b>... typical.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Well, as all here reading can now see? So much for "admins" - "See admin RUN", lol!</p><p>(AND? I'll just say it again, to reinforce the point: ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN MERE USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD, who "talk a good game", but run when things go "over their head" &amp; they talk big, but, they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; can't back up their b.s.)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; see how " the user with a better password " ran from this - &gt; http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1490078&amp;cid = 30562472 [ slashdot.org ] Typical - he did just like most " users with a better password " usually go and do : Run !
Especially when they shoot their pie hole 's off &amp; ca n't back up their b.s .
...---- " Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Care to show us your PHD in English , you undereducated little dolt ? What 's terribly amusing here , is WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S .
... or , are you showing others differently now ?
Not.---- " I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make : believing that you have found a solution that someone ca n't break .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) First of all : The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what 's needed , but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE ( especially in this very case ) &amp; , one that 's easily obtained ( see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example , &amp; the mvps.org model 's probably the best one listed imo @ least , because it 's regularly maintained ) &amp; easily maintained as well ( text editor , anyone ?
) ...So , once more ?
Care to prove me wrong ? ?
Why do n't you " grow a pair " , &amp; back up your b.s .
I quote above : Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY " wrong " here , or , in the URL above , and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple , easy , &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s .
here ( and I think you KNOW it , &amp; this is why you outright RAN , you moronic little coward ) .---- " I 'm glad you think you are clever , and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) LOL : AND , who the hell are you ? Clearly , based on your lack of reply ?
Well - You 're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER " USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD " &amp; that 's it , " Mr. Admin " , lol... so , please : Do n't even TRY to be " clever " with me , OR " look down your nose @ me " you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you , and again - I think you KNOW it , because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong ( I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here ) .---- " However , your solution is n't exactly flawless " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Well , once more ? Tell me where it is " flawed " &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies , literally in seconds , with very easy work-arounds ( ones that are probably way , Way , WAY over your undereducated " user with a better password " dim brain 's capability to come up with yourself ) .I 'll be waiting...---- " and rather than showing healthy confidence , you 're over posting , becoming belligerent toward others , and generally being a prick .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) You 're the one calling the names FIRST , in the URL above no less as proof thereof , you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT ( lol , " user with a better password " ) , &amp; now ? NOW , I am only returning the favor , in kind , &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.After all - you running like a scared little " beyotch " now after I asked you to show me where my solution is supposedly " flawed " , &amp; especially in the case of the NetBIOS problem... ( Using HOSTS as a " total security solution " , dummy - I never ONCE said it was that .
It 's only a partial one , it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone , but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure , easily maintained , &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS ( on a very simple principal no less of " you ca n't get burned if you ca n't go into a fire " basically ) ) ? Well , after all your " big talk " , which I quote now ? Please... you 're only proving my point for me .
Keep running " big talking user with a better password only " ...---- " Mod me down for honesty , I wo n't care .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Uhm , " dumpkopf " ?
I am the one being honest here , and calling YOU what you are , first of all.In case you had n't noticed , I post as " A/C " - we ac 's ca n't dispense " mod points " .SECONDLY , all your kind here has ( the " wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user " lol ) , is your effete little " mod points " , but apparently , based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here OR in the URL above ? That 's really ALL you have ( and your big talk , plus your " better password " user , lol , as a mere " admin " ) .LASTLY , as far as " honesty " ?
You ran 'beyotch ' , like a scared child , despite all your 'big talk ' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a " big talker " who ca n't back up his b.s. , &amp; nothing more...---- " On the topic of securing your network , everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty : " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) At this point ? Everyone reading here knows 1 thing : YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR " BIG TALK " ... typical.APKP.S. = &gt; Well , as all here reading can now see ?
So much for " admins " - " See admin RUN " , lol ! ( AND ?
I 'll just say it again , to reinforce the point : ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN MERE USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD , who " talk a good game " , but run when things go " over their head " &amp; they talk big , but , they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; ca n't back up their b.s. ) .. .
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; see how "the user with a better password" ran from this -&gt;http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472 [slashdot.org]Typical - he did just like most "users with a better password" usually go and do: Run!
Especially when they shoot their pie hole's off &amp; can't back up their b.s.
...----"Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Care to show us your PHD in English, you undereducated little dolt?What's terribly amusing here, is WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S.
... or, are you showing others differently now?
Not.----"I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)First of all: The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what's needed, but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE (especially in this very case) &amp;, one that's easily obtained (see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example, &amp; the mvps.org model's probably the best one listed imo @ least, because it's regularly maintained) &amp; easily maintained as well (text editor, anyone?
)...So, once more?
Care to prove me wrong??
Why don't you "grow a pair", &amp; back up your b.s.
I quote above:Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY "wrong" here, or, in the URL above, and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple, easy, &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s.
here (and I think you KNOW it, &amp; this is why you outright RAN, you moronic little coward).----"I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)LOL: AND, who the hell are you?Clearly, based on your lack of reply?
Well - You're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER "USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD" &amp; that's it, "Mr. Admin", lol... so, please:Don't even TRY to be "clever" with me, OR "look down your nose @ me" you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you, and again - I think you KNOW it, because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong (I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here).----"However, your solution isn't exactly flawless" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Well, once more?Tell me where it is "flawed" &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies, literally in seconds, with very easy work-arounds (ones that are probably way, Way, WAY over your undereducated "user with a better password" dim brain's capability to come up with yourself).I'll be waiting...----"and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)You're the one calling the names FIRST, in the URL above no less as proof thereof, you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT (lol, "user with a better password"), &amp; now?NOW, I am only returning the favor, in kind, &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.After all - you running like a scared little "beyotch" now after I asked you to show me where my solution is supposedly "flawed", &amp; especially in the case of the NetBIOS problem...(Using HOSTS as a "total security solution", dummy - I never ONCE said it was that.
It's only a partial one, it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone, but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure, easily maintained, &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS (on a very simple principal no less of "you can't get burned if you can't go into a fire" basically))?Well, after all your "big talk", which I quote now?Please... you're only proving my point for me.
Keep running "big talking user with a better password only"...----"Mod me down for honesty, I won't care.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Uhm, "dumpkopf"?
I am the one being honest here, and calling YOU what you are, first of all.In case you hadn't noticed, I post as "A/C" - we ac's can't dispense "mod points".SECONDLY, all your kind here has (the "wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user" lol) , is your effete little "mod points", but apparently, based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here OR in the URL above?That's really ALL you have (and your big talk, plus your "better password" user, lol, as a mere "admin").LASTLY, as far as "honesty"?
You ran 'beyotch', like a scared child, despite all your 'big talk' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a "big talker" who can't back up his b.s., &amp; nothing more...----"On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)At this point?Everyone reading here knows 1 thing: YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR "BIG TALK"... typical.APKP.S.=&gt; Well, as all here reading can now see?
So much for "admins" - "See admin RUN", lol!(AND?
I'll just say it again, to reinforce the point: ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN MERE USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD, who "talk a good game", but run when things go "over their head" &amp; they talk big, but, they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; can't back up their b.s.)...
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563056</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Glonoinha</author>
	<datestamp>1261928400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit.  Thanks dude, now I feel old.  I've personally owned every device you just mentioned except the 110 baud and the Trailblazer.<br>300 baud wasn't so bad when your screen was only 25 characters wide.</p><p>I can still tell what speed a modem connects just by listening, right up through about 38.4k.  I used to be able to tell whether the connect was going to be worth keeping (ie, over 40k) on my 57.6 just by listening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit .
Thanks dude , now I feel old .
I 've personally owned every device you just mentioned except the 110 baud and the Trailblazer.300 baud was n't so bad when your screen was only 25 characters wide.I can still tell what speed a modem connects just by listening , right up through about 38.4k .
I used to be able to tell whether the connect was going to be worth keeping ( ie , over 40k ) on my 57.6 just by listening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit.
Thanks dude, now I feel old.
I've personally owned every device you just mentioned except the 110 baud and the Trailblazer.300 baud wasn't so bad when your screen was only 25 characters wide.I can still tell what speed a modem connects just by listening, right up through about 38.4k.
I used to be able to tell whether the connect was going to be worth keeping (ie, over 40k) on my 57.6 just by listening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621424</id>
	<title>Why'd you run you mere user w/ a better password?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230901920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; see how "the user with a better password" ran from this -&gt;</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Typical - he did just like most "users with a better password" usually go and do: Run!</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Care to show us your PHD in English, you undereducated moron? It's terribly amusing WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or, are you showing others differently now? Not.</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>First of all: The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what's needed, but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE (especially in this very case) &amp;, one that's easily obtained (see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example, &amp; the mvps.org model's probably the best one listed imo @ least, because it's regularly maintained) &amp; easily maintained as well (text editor, anyone?)...</p><p>So, once more? Care to prove me wrong??</p><p>So, grow a pair, &amp; back up your b.s. I quote above:</p><p><b>Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY "wrong" here, and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple, easy, &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s. here</b> (and I think you KNOW it, &amp; this is why you outright RAN, you moronic little coward).</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>LOL: Who the hell are you? You're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER "USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD" &amp; that's it, "Mr. Admin", lol... so, please:</p><p>Don't even TRY to be "clever" with me, OR "look down your nose @ me" you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you, and again:</p><p>I think you KNOW it, because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong (I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here).</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"However, your solution isn't exactly flawless"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Well, once more? Tell me where it is "flawed" &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies, literally in seconds, with very easy work-arounds (ones that are probably way, Way, WAY over your undereducated "user with a better password" dim brain's capability to come up with yourself).</p><p>I'll be waiting...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>You're the one calling the names FIRST, you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT (lol, "user with a better password"), &amp; now?</p><p>NOW, I am only returning the favor, in kind, &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.</p><p>After all - you running like a scared little "beyotch" now after I asked you to show me where my solution (only a partial one, it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone, but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure, easily maintained, &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS (on a very simple principal no less of "you can't get burned if you can't go into a fire" basically))?</p><p>Well, after all your "big talk", which I quote now?</p><p>Please... you're only proving my point for me. Keep running "big talking user with a better password only"...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Mod me down for honesty, I won't care."</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>Uhm, "dumpkopf"?</p><p>In case you hadn't noticed, I post as "A/C" - we can't dispense "mod points", first of all.</p><p>SECONDLY, all your kind here has (the "wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user" lol) , is your effete little "mod points", but apparently, based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here, that's really ALL you have (and your big talk, plus your "better password" user, lol, as a mere "admin").</p><p>LASTLY, as far as "honesty"? You ran 'beyotch', like a scared child, despite all your 'big talk' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a "big talker" who can't back up his b.s., &amp; nothing more...</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:"</b> - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)</p></div><p>At this point?</p><p><b>Everyone reading here knows 1 thing: YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR "BIG TALK"</b>... typical.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Well, as all here reading can now see? So much for "admins" - "See admin RUN", lol!</p><p>(AND? I'll just say it again, to reinforce the point: ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD, who "talk a good game", but run when things go "over their head" &amp; they talk big, but, they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; can't back up their b.s.)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; see how " the user with a better password " ran from this - &gt; http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1490078&amp;cid = 30562472 [ slashdot.org ] Typical - he did just like most " users with a better password " usually go and do : Run ! ---- " Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Care to show us your PHD in English , you undereducated moron ?
It 's terribly amusing WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S .
... or , are you showing others differently now ?
Not.---- " I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make : believing that you have found a solution that someone ca n't break .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) First of all : The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what 's needed , but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE ( especially in this very case ) &amp; , one that 's easily obtained ( see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example , &amp; the mvps.org model 's probably the best one listed imo @ least , because it 's regularly maintained ) &amp; easily maintained as well ( text editor , anyone ?
) ...So , once more ?
Care to prove me wrong ?
? So , grow a pair , &amp; back up your b.s .
I quote above : Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY " wrong " here , and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple , easy , &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s .
here ( and I think you KNOW it , &amp; this is why you outright RAN , you moronic little coward ) .---- " I 'm glad you think you are clever , and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) LOL : Who the hell are you ?
You 're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER " USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD " &amp; that 's it , " Mr. Admin " , lol... so , please : Do n't even TRY to be " clever " with me , OR " look down your nose @ me " you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you , and again : I think you KNOW it , because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong ( I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here ) .---- " However , your solution is n't exactly flawless " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Well , once more ?
Tell me where it is " flawed " &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies , literally in seconds , with very easy work-arounds ( ones that are probably way , Way , WAY over your undereducated " user with a better password " dim brain 's capability to come up with yourself ) .I 'll be waiting...---- " and rather than showing healthy confidence , you 're over posting , becoming belligerent toward others , and generally being a prick .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) You 're the one calling the names FIRST , you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT ( lol , " user with a better password " ) , &amp; now ? NOW , I am only returning the favor , in kind , &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.After all - you running like a scared little " beyotch " now after I asked you to show me where my solution ( only a partial one , it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone , but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure , easily maintained , &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS ( on a very simple principal no less of " you ca n't get burned if you ca n't go into a fire " basically ) ) ? Well , after all your " big talk " , which I quote now ? Please... you 're only proving my point for me .
Keep running " big talking user with a better password only " ...---- " Mod me down for honesty , I wo n't care .
" - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) Uhm , " dumpkopf " ? In case you had n't noticed , I post as " A/C " - we ca n't dispense " mod points " , first of all.SECONDLY , all your kind here has ( the " wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user " lol ) , is your effete little " mod points " , but apparently , based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here , that 's really ALL you have ( and your big talk , plus your " better password " user , lol , as a mere " admin " ) .LASTLY , as far as " honesty " ?
You ran 'beyotch ' , like a scared child , despite all your 'big talk ' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a " big talker " who ca n't back up his b.s. , &amp; nothing more...---- " On the topic of securing your network , everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty : " - by ihuntrocks ( 870257 ) on Saturday December 26 , @ 10 : 44PM ( # 30560500 ) At this point ? Everyone reading here knows 1 thing : YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR " BIG TALK " ... typical.APKP.S. = &gt; Well , as all here reading can now see ?
So much for " admins " - " See admin RUN " , lol ! ( AND ?
I 'll just say it again , to reinforce the point : ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD , who " talk a good game " , but run when things go " over their head " &amp; they talk big , but , they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; ca n't back up their b.s. ) .. .
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; see how "the user with a better password" ran from this -&gt;http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;cid=30562472 [slashdot.org]Typical - he did just like most "users with a better password" usually go and do: Run!----"Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Care to show us your PHD in English, you undereducated moron?
It's terribly amusing WATCHING YOU RUN LIKE A SCARED BEYOTCH WHO SHOT HIS MOUTH OFF &amp; NOW IS AFRAID TO BACK UP HIS B.S.
... or, are you showing others differently now?
Not.----"I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)First of all: The use of a HOSTS file is only a SMALL PART of what's needed, but it is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ONE (especially in this very case) &amp;, one that's easily obtained (see the HOSTS file section on wikipedia for example, &amp; the mvps.org model's probably the best one listed imo @ least, because it's regularly maintained) &amp; easily maintained as well (text editor, anyone?
)...So, once more?
Care to prove me wrong?
?So, grow a pair, &amp; back up your b.s.
I quote above:Show where I am SUPPOSEDLY "wrong" here, and I will rip you up in seconds with very simple, easy, &amp; effective work-arounds for your b.s.
here (and I think you KNOW it, &amp; this is why you outright RAN, you moronic little coward).----"I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)LOL: Who the hell are you?
You're NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER "USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD" &amp; that's it, "Mr. Admin", lol... so, please:Don't even TRY to be "clever" with me, OR "look down your nose @ me" you condescending little douchebag... because I will shred you, and again:I think you KNOW it, because you ran like a scared little child who has done wrong (I can only presume that by your running away from answering me here).----"However, your solution isn't exactly flawless" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Well, once more?
Tell me where it is "flawed" &amp; I will tear up your stupid replies, literally in seconds, with very easy work-arounds (ones that are probably way, Way, WAY over your undereducated "user with a better password" dim brain's capability to come up with yourself).I'll be waiting...----"and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)You're the one calling the names FIRST, you LIMITED LITTLE DOLT (lol, "user with a better password"), &amp; now?NOW, I am only returning the favor, in kind, &amp; patiently waiting to see if you actually possess a set of testicles.After all - you running like a scared little "beyotch" now after I asked you to show me where my solution (only a partial one, it needs a LOT MORE to be safer than a HOSTS alone, but a HOSTS file is a hell of a good measure, easily maintained, &amp; easily obtained AND THAT WORKS (on a very simple principal no less of "you can't get burned if you can't go into a fire" basically))?Well, after all your "big talk", which I quote now?Please... you're only proving my point for me.
Keep running "big talking user with a better password only"...----"Mod me down for honesty, I won't care.
" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)Uhm, "dumpkopf"?In case you hadn't noticed, I post as "A/C" - we can't dispense "mod points", first of all.SECONDLY, all your kind here has (the "wannabe almighty easily tracked registered user" lol) , is your effete little "mod points", but apparently, based on your lack of showing &amp; replying here, that's really ALL you have (and your big talk, plus your "better password" user, lol, as a mere "admin").LASTLY, as far as "honesty"?
You ran 'beyotch', like a scared child, despite all your 'big talk' &amp; I think that folks reading here can HONESTLY ASSUME you are nothing more than a "big talker" who can't back up his b.s., &amp; nothing more...----"On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:" - by ihuntrocks (870257)  on Saturday December 26, @10:44PM (#30560500)At this point?Everyone reading here knows 1 thing: YOU RUN LIKE A LITTLE BEYOTCH WHEN CONFRONTED FOR YOUR "BIG TALK"... typical.APKP.S.=&gt; Well, as all here reading can now see?
So much for "admins" - "See admin RUN", lol!(AND?
I'll just say it again, to reinforce the point: ADMINS ARE USUALLY NOTHING MORE THAN USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD, who "talk a good game", but run when things go "over their head" &amp; they talk big, but, they run when they shoot their mouths off &amp; can't back up their b.s.)...
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560948</id>
	<title>US Robotics</title>
	<author>DebianDog</author>
	<datestamp>1261852260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just remember US Robotic modems and BBS's and when you were lucky enough to have a USR and connect to another US Robotics modem you always seemed to get a speed just above what everyone else had.  (HST mode) 16.8k back in 92-93 us laughing at the poor 14.4 guys.  In retrospect... kind of sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just remember US Robotic modems and BBS 's and when you were lucky enough to have a USR and connect to another US Robotics modem you always seemed to get a speed just above what everyone else had .
( HST mode ) 16.8k back in 92-93 us laughing at the poor 14.4 guys .
In retrospect... kind of sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just remember US Robotic modems and BBS's and when you were lucky enough to have a USR and connect to another US Robotics modem you always seemed to get a speed just above what everyone else had.
(HST mode) 16.8k back in 92-93 us laughing at the poor 14.4 guys.
In retrospect... kind of sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561038</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1261853940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was using dialup as little as 5 years ago. I was too far from the exchange for ADSL and ISDN was too expensive. Then Telstra introduced a plan where you paid about $100/month for BRI ISDN, giving you 2 64K channels. So I could be surfing at 128K unless someone wanted to use the phone in which case it would drop back to 64K. Better than my 33K modem! I assume Telstra did that to get one last little bit of life out of the ISDN infrastructure that nobody wanted anymore. They took that option away a few years ago, but fortunately I'm on ADSL now.</p><p>My mum was using dialup as little as 12 months ago, until she got her two-way satellite connection. I find that the quality of modems these days is pretty awful. The people in Australia who use them typically use them because they are too far away from the exchange to get anything else, which means the signals are travelling over copper that could be decades old. You need a good modem which can adjust its impedance settings and keep tuning to the line characteristics for that to work at reasonable speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was using dialup as little as 5 years ago .
I was too far from the exchange for ADSL and ISDN was too expensive .
Then Telstra introduced a plan where you paid about $ 100/month for BRI ISDN , giving you 2 64K channels .
So I could be surfing at 128K unless someone wanted to use the phone in which case it would drop back to 64K .
Better than my 33K modem !
I assume Telstra did that to get one last little bit of life out of the ISDN infrastructure that nobody wanted anymore .
They took that option away a few years ago , but fortunately I 'm on ADSL now.My mum was using dialup as little as 12 months ago , until she got her two-way satellite connection .
I find that the quality of modems these days is pretty awful .
The people in Australia who use them typically use them because they are too far away from the exchange to get anything else , which means the signals are travelling over copper that could be decades old .
You need a good modem which can adjust its impedance settings and keep tuning to the line characteristics for that to work at reasonable speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was using dialup as little as 5 years ago.
I was too far from the exchange for ADSL and ISDN was too expensive.
Then Telstra introduced a plan where you paid about $100/month for BRI ISDN, giving you 2 64K channels.
So I could be surfing at 128K unless someone wanted to use the phone in which case it would drop back to 64K.
Better than my 33K modem!
I assume Telstra did that to get one last little bit of life out of the ISDN infrastructure that nobody wanted anymore.
They took that option away a few years ago, but fortunately I'm on ADSL now.My mum was using dialup as little as 12 months ago, until she got her two-way satellite connection.
I find that the quality of modems these days is pretty awful.
The people in Australia who use them typically use them because they are too far away from the exchange to get anything else, which means the signals are travelling over copper that could be decades old.
You need a good modem which can adjust its impedance settings and keep tuning to the line characteristics for that to work at reasonable speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561084</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261854840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could just nitpick for a moment, I think you forgot 28800, which was the fastest for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could just nitpick for a moment , I think you forgot 28800 , which was the fastest for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could just nitpick for a moment, I think you forgot 28800, which was the fastest for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563122</id>
	<title>Terrible</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1261929240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it, it's technically wrong throughout. Terrible article, not worthy of front page<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it , it 's technically wrong throughout .
Terrible article , not worthy of front page /.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it, it's technically wrong throughout.
Terrible article, not worthy of front page /.Maury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565126</id>
	<title>Re:Brings back memories</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1261905480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which reminds me...</p><p>The RCA 1800 family had an interesting feature...  Every instruction took 8 clock cycles (with a few extended ones that took 12).  This means that it was easy to, not only figure out how long a routine would take to run, but write routines to take up a specified time.</p><p>In the RCA VIP (hobby) computer, the tape output was a frequency-shift keyed output that was driven by a software UART created by this technique.  You could also program it to play music producing the appropriate frequency using a software timing loop.  I wrote a few programs that did just the opposite... did frequency decomposition using the built-in zero-crossing detector for the tape interface (a poor man's spectrum analyzer).</p><p>It was pretty amazing what could be done it 8k bytes of memory.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which reminds me...The RCA 1800 family had an interesting feature... Every instruction took 8 clock cycles ( with a few extended ones that took 12 ) .
This means that it was easy to , not only figure out how long a routine would take to run , but write routines to take up a specified time.In the RCA VIP ( hobby ) computer , the tape output was a frequency-shift keyed output that was driven by a software UART created by this technique .
You could also program it to play music producing the appropriate frequency using a software timing loop .
I wrote a few programs that did just the opposite... did frequency decomposition using the built-in zero-crossing detector for the tape interface ( a poor man 's spectrum analyzer ) .It was pretty amazing what could be done it 8k bytes of memory .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which reminds me...The RCA 1800 family had an interesting feature...  Every instruction took 8 clock cycles (with a few extended ones that took 12).
This means that it was easy to, not only figure out how long a routine would take to run, but write routines to take up a specified time.In the RCA VIP (hobby) computer, the tape output was a frequency-shift keyed output that was driven by a software UART created by this technique.
You could also program it to play music producing the appropriate frequency using a software timing loop.
I wrote a few programs that did just the opposite... did frequency decomposition using the built-in zero-crossing detector for the tape interface (a poor man's spectrum analyzer).It was pretty amazing what could be done it 8k bytes of memory.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561060</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261854300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>]P.S. The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.  Hence it should be capitalized.  This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).  Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....</p></div><p>Generally when an acronym is pronounced as a single word and has entered general usage, it is not capitalized.  These days scuba, laser, and radar are not capitalized. Nor is modem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>] P.S .
The word MODEM ( as the article indicates ) represents MOdulatorDEModulator .
Hence it should be capitalized .
This is also try of enCOderDECoder ( CODEC ) .
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Generally when an acronym is pronounced as a single word and has entered general usage , it is not capitalized .
These days scuba , laser , and radar are not capitalized .
Nor is modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>]P.S.
The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.
Hence it should be capitalized.
This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Generally when an acronym is pronounced as a single word and has entered general usage, it is not capitalized.
These days scuba, laser, and radar are not capitalized.
Nor is modem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561196</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1261856700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>n the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US). Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.</p></div><p>When the U.S operating companies started rolling out ISDN, I thought all my connection issues were history. But OCs still thought of themselves as regulated monopolies (they still do, really) and got the FCC to set high per-minute rates for ISDN usage &mdash; which pretty much destroyed any chance of ISDN being widely adopted. So we were stuck with the damn modems until DSL allowed us to sidestep the federal tariffs. And we still haven't caught up.</p><p>I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that US ISDN also had 64 kbps data ports. The 56 kbps limit was imposed on modems because the FCC experts thought that analog connections needed a safety margin to prevent crosstalk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>n the mid-90s , we got BRI ( ISDN , 2 * 64 kbps in most of the world , 2 * 56 kbps in the US ) .
Which pretty much ended the modem era , except for in the US and UK , where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.When the U.S operating companies started rolling out ISDN , I thought all my connection issues were history .
But OCs still thought of themselves as regulated monopolies ( they still do , really ) and got the FCC to set high per-minute rates for ISDN usage    which pretty much destroyed any chance of ISDN being widely adopted .
So we were stuck with the damn modems until DSL allowed us to sidestep the federal tariffs .
And we still have n't caught up.I might be misremembering , but I 'm pretty sure that US ISDN also had 64 kbps data ports .
The 56 kbps limit was imposed on modems because the FCC experts thought that analog connections needed a safety margin to prevent crosstalk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US).
Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.When the U.S operating companies started rolling out ISDN, I thought all my connection issues were history.
But OCs still thought of themselves as regulated monopolies (they still do, really) and got the FCC to set high per-minute rates for ISDN usage — which pretty much destroyed any chance of ISDN being widely adopted.
So we were stuck with the damn modems until DSL allowed us to sidestep the federal tariffs.
And we still haven't caught up.I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that US ISDN also had 64 kbps data ports.
The 56 kbps limit was imposed on modems because the FCC experts thought that analog connections needed a safety margin to prevent crosstalk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560868</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>frieko</author>
	<datestamp>1261851060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFWikipedia:<br>
The figure of 56 kbit/s is derived from its implementation using the same digital infrastructure used since the 1960s for digital telephony in the PSTN, which uses a PCM sampling rate of 8,000 Hz used with 8-bit sample encoding to encode analogue signals into a digital stream of 64,000 bit/s.

However, in the T-carrier systems used in the U.S. and Canada, a technique called bit-robbing uses, in every sixth frame, the least significant bit in the time slot associated with the voice channel for Channel Associated Signaling (CAS). This effectively renders the lowest bit of the 8 speech bits unusable for data transmission, and so a 56 kbit/s line used only 7 of the 8 data bits in each sample period to send data, thus giving a data rate of 8000 Hz &#215; 7 bits = 56 kbit/s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFWikipedia : The figure of 56 kbit/s is derived from its implementation using the same digital infrastructure used since the 1960s for digital telephony in the PSTN , which uses a PCM sampling rate of 8,000 Hz used with 8-bit sample encoding to encode analogue signals into a digital stream of 64,000 bit/s .
However , in the T-carrier systems used in the U.S. and Canada , a technique called bit-robbing uses , in every sixth frame , the least significant bit in the time slot associated with the voice channel for Channel Associated Signaling ( CAS ) .
This effectively renders the lowest bit of the 8 speech bits unusable for data transmission , and so a 56 kbit/s line used only 7 of the 8 data bits in each sample period to send data , thus giving a data rate of 8000 Hz   7 bits = 56 kbit/s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFWikipedia:
The figure of 56 kbit/s is derived from its implementation using the same digital infrastructure used since the 1960s for digital telephony in the PSTN, which uses a PCM sampling rate of 8,000 Hz used with 8-bit sample encoding to encode analogue signals into a digital stream of 64,000 bit/s.
However, in the T-carrier systems used in the U.S. and Canada, a technique called bit-robbing uses, in every sixth frame, the least significant bit in the time slot associated with the voice channel for Channel Associated Signaling (CAS).
This effectively renders the lowest bit of the 8 speech bits unusable for data transmission, and so a 56 kbit/s line used only 7 of the 8 data bits in each sample period to send data, thus giving a data rate of 8000 Hz × 7 bits = 56 kbit/s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562110</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1261912440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started out with a 28.8K USR, then moved up to 33.6 and then USR X2 56k. Of course, those 56k modems only worked if you were connected to an ISP with proper equipment on their end. Even so, I got a 48K connection receive while the upstream was always limited to 33.6 speeds at best.</p><p>Oh, and those WinModems are worthless with DOS games. At the time I didn't know any better, but found out shortly when troubleshooting Duke Nukem 3D. Back then, support was limited and the Internet was just a novelty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started out with a 28.8K USR , then moved up to 33.6 and then USR X2 56k .
Of course , those 56k modems only worked if you were connected to an ISP with proper equipment on their end .
Even so , I got a 48K connection receive while the upstream was always limited to 33.6 speeds at best.Oh , and those WinModems are worthless with DOS games .
At the time I did n't know any better , but found out shortly when troubleshooting Duke Nukem 3D .
Back then , support was limited and the Internet was just a novelty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started out with a 28.8K USR, then moved up to 33.6 and then USR X2 56k.
Of course, those 56k modems only worked if you were connected to an ISP with proper equipment on their end.
Even so, I got a 48K connection receive while the upstream was always limited to 33.6 speeds at best.Oh, and those WinModems are worthless with DOS games.
At the time I didn't know any better, but found out shortly when troubleshooting Duke Nukem 3D.
Back then, support was limited and the Internet was just a novelty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573798</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1262028480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not aware of any 38.4Kbps modem.  Nyquist theorem doesn't allow for greater than about 33.6 with a purely analog connection.  You could set your port speed to 38.4 to accommodate compression.  I also don't know whether there was a 4800 bps modem, but the article does and a 9600 bps modem could drop down to 4800 if needed.  Therefore, it wasn't "just compression".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not aware of any 38.4Kbps modem .
Nyquist theorem does n't allow for greater than about 33.6 with a purely analog connection .
You could set your port speed to 38.4 to accommodate compression .
I also do n't know whether there was a 4800 bps modem , but the article does and a 9600 bps modem could drop down to 4800 if needed .
Therefore , it was n't " just compression " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not aware of any 38.4Kbps modem.
Nyquist theorem doesn't allow for greater than about 33.6 with a purely analog connection.
You could set your port speed to 38.4 to accommodate compression.
I also don't know whether there was a 4800 bps modem, but the article does and a 9600 bps modem could drop down to 4800 if needed.
Therefore, it wasn't "just compression".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560740</id>
	<title>Brings back memories</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have mod points to burn but I have to post in here.</p><p>The traffic system I worked on had 300 baud modems attached to cheap leased lines (soldered in, mostly). Two modems per card. 8 cards on a bytecraft backplane. Up to 128 modems on a 19 inch rack. Each modem had three LEDs (carrier, TX, RX) and at the speed the system operated you could see the poll/response from the regional controller to the sites and back. In the dark it was a thing of beauty. Computers of old.</p><p>If something was wrong in the logic (say a checksum mismatch) then you could see it in the LEDs because one channel (slot) would not follow the nice pulse sequence. Several times I mucked up the checksums of a rack and took out a lot of sites. Maybe I shouldn't post about that...</p><p>Going back in time my 6502 system had a modem for the cassette interface. I knew you could overclock the UART and FSK modem driver and I had dreams of using my uncles reel to reel hifi system for storage. Never happened. Though I did find that you could use the cassette player as a sound card of sorts by locking on REC and PLAY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have mod points to burn but I have to post in here.The traffic system I worked on had 300 baud modems attached to cheap leased lines ( soldered in , mostly ) .
Two modems per card .
8 cards on a bytecraft backplane .
Up to 128 modems on a 19 inch rack .
Each modem had three LEDs ( carrier , TX , RX ) and at the speed the system operated you could see the poll/response from the regional controller to the sites and back .
In the dark it was a thing of beauty .
Computers of old.If something was wrong in the logic ( say a checksum mismatch ) then you could see it in the LEDs because one channel ( slot ) would not follow the nice pulse sequence .
Several times I mucked up the checksums of a rack and took out a lot of sites .
Maybe I should n't post about that...Going back in time my 6502 system had a modem for the cassette interface .
I knew you could overclock the UART and FSK modem driver and I had dreams of using my uncles reel to reel hifi system for storage .
Never happened .
Though I did find that you could use the cassette player as a sound card of sorts by locking on REC and PLAY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have mod points to burn but I have to post in here.The traffic system I worked on had 300 baud modems attached to cheap leased lines (soldered in, mostly).
Two modems per card.
8 cards on a bytecraft backplane.
Up to 128 modems on a 19 inch rack.
Each modem had three LEDs (carrier, TX, RX) and at the speed the system operated you could see the poll/response from the regional controller to the sites and back.
In the dark it was a thing of beauty.
Computers of old.If something was wrong in the logic (say a checksum mismatch) then you could see it in the LEDs because one channel (slot) would not follow the nice pulse sequence.
Several times I mucked up the checksums of a rack and took out a lot of sites.
Maybe I shouldn't post about that...Going back in time my 6502 system had a modem for the cassette interface.
I knew you could overclock the UART and FSK modem driver and I had dreams of using my uncles reel to reel hifi system for storage.
Never happened.
Though I did find that you could use the cassette player as a sound card of sorts by locking on REC and PLAY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562334</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Madsy</author>
	<datestamp>1261916640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you forget the 28800 baud modem?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you forget the 28800 baud modem ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you forget the 28800 baud modem?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30572098</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Namlak</author>
	<datestamp>1262021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.</p><p>(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked. Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.</p><p>(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical. Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.</p></div><p>I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month, I've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running, a fun first project on the breadboard, and I'm re-aquainting myself with C.  What great fun it is to be back to programming "on the hardware" so-to-speak.  I'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be.  The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways.  And when it is time to get into code, I'm not really learning new, clever, interesting ways to accomplish something, I'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.</p><p>I also noticed that in the late 90's the answers to my typical "get to know you" questions when interviewing job candidates changed from "I've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up" to "My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers, so I took some classes ".</p><p>I've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites.  Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days, people would take classes at night school to "learn computers" because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon.  Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home, they all think they "know computers" but cannot find a file twice, can't map a network drive, and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) It 's harder to * get at * the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way .
( 2 ) Back in the 70 's and much of the 80 's , home computers were owned by hobbyists , not Joe Sixpack , so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked .
Now there still some - more on an absolute scale , but fewer percentage wise .
( 3 ) Now it 's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical .
Back then , it was not , so it was required that people were technical.I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month , I 've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running , a fun first project on the breadboard , and I 'm re-aquainting myself with C. What great fun it is to be back to programming " on the hardware " so-to-speak .
I 'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be .
The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways .
And when it is time to get into code , I 'm not really learning new , clever , interesting ways to accomplish something , I 'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.I also noticed that in the late 90 's the answers to my typical " get to know you " questions when interviewing job candidates changed from " I 've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up " to " My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers , so I took some classes " .I 've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites .
Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days , people would take classes at night school to " learn computers " because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon .
Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home , they all think they " know computers " but can not find a file twice , ca n't map a network drive , and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.
(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked.
Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.
(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical.
Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month, I've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running, a fun first project on the breadboard, and I'm re-aquainting myself with C.  What great fun it is to be back to programming "on the hardware" so-to-speak.
I'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be.
The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways.
And when it is time to get into code, I'm not really learning new, clever, interesting ways to accomplish something, I'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.I also noticed that in the late 90's the answers to my typical "get to know you" questions when interviewing job candidates changed from "I've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up" to "My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers, so I took some classes ".I've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites.
Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days, people would take classes at night school to "learn computers" because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon.
Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home, they all think they "know computers" but cannot find a file twice, can't map a network drive, and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1261850940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, I was using "56K" dialup until earlier this year. Even though it was 33,600. For most things I was doing, it was plenty fast enough. Only thing that killed it was OS X software updates, and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I was using " 56K " dialup until earlier this year .
Even though it was 33,600 .
For most things I was doing , it was plenty fast enough .
Only thing that killed it was OS X software updates , and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a * text * medium .
          Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I was using "56K" dialup until earlier this year.
Even though it was 33,600.
For most things I was doing, it was plenty fast enough.
Only thing that killed it was OS X software updates, and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium.
          Brett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30576322</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1261998120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I tried setting up an older Samsung mobile to get network on my girlfriends ubuntu, I actually had to write some dial-up script because the thing just wouldn't work "out of the box the ubuntu way" (guessing the usb id of the mobile was missing from some db I was unable to locate). This really transported be back to the 80s for a second or two.<br>Seems the AT command set is another nice example of "old stuff still in use".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I tried setting up an older Samsung mobile to get network on my girlfriends ubuntu , I actually had to write some dial-up script because the thing just would n't work " out of the box the ubuntu way " ( guessing the usb id of the mobile was missing from some db I was unable to locate ) .
This really transported be back to the 80s for a second or two.Seems the AT command set is another nice example of " old stuff still in use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I tried setting up an older Samsung mobile to get network on my girlfriends ubuntu, I actually had to write some dial-up script because the thing just wouldn't work "out of the box the ubuntu way" (guessing the usb id of the mobile was missing from some db I was unable to locate).
This really transported be back to the 80s for a second or two.Seems the AT command set is another nice example of "old stuff still in use".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30575254</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>hollywench</author>
	<datestamp>1261992600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is one hell of an astute observation.  And you are right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one hell of an astute observation .
And you are right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one hell of an astute observation.
And you are right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561210</id>
	<title>Some of the Baby Bells</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261856880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>were tryting to stop people from connecting early modems or setting up BBS, despite the law.<br>Probably one of the major reasons for the slow early improvement in modems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>were tryting to stop people from connecting early modems or setting up BBS , despite the law.Probably one of the major reasons for the slow early improvement in modems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were tryting to stop people from connecting early modems or setting up BBS, despite the law.Probably one of the major reasons for the slow early improvement in modems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565208</id>
	<title>BBS Documentary!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1261905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was online with many BBS' with during dial-up modems days before they died because of the Internet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://www.slashdot.org/" title="slashdot.org">/.</a> [slashdot.org] has a few old stories about this awesome documentary from years ago:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/07/0020204&amp;tid=95" title="slashdot.org">A Documentary About Bulletin Board Systems</a> [slashdot.org]</li><li> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/01/052227&amp;tid=95" title="slashdot.org">The BBS Documentary: A One Year Report</a> [slashdot.org]</li><li> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/18/130204&amp;tid=126&amp;tid=1" title="slashdot.org">7 hour BBS Documentary Nearly Ready</a> [slashdot.org]</li><li> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/1225245&amp;tid=188&amp;tid=215&amp;tid=95&amp;tid=1" title="slashdot.org">BBS Documentary Now Shipping</a> [slashdot.org]</li><li> <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/1225245&amp;tid=188&amp;tid=215&amp;tid=95&amp;tid=1" title="slashdot.org">Hundreds of Hours of BBS Documentary Interviews</a> [slashdot.org]</li></ul><p><a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=\%22BBS+documentary\%22" title="google.com">Google Video</a> [google.com] has all the parts online:<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1731271864657931901" title="google.com">1</a> [google.com]: Baud introduces the story of the beginning of the BBS, including interviews with Ward Christensen and Randy Suess, who used a snowstorm as an inspiration to change the world.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3465706008840921408" title="google.com">2</a> [google.com]: Sysops and Users introduces the stories of the people who used BBSes, and lets them tell their own stories of living in this new world.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5334799896438184592" title="google.com">3</a> [google.com]: Make it Pay covers the BBS industry that rose in the 1980's and grew to fantastic heights before disappearing almost overnight.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3145680396796021272" title="google.com">4</a> [google.com]: Fidonet covers the largest volunteer-run computer network in history, and the people who made it a joy and a political nightmare.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8368209864515842287" title="google.com">5</a> [google.com]: Artscene tells the rarely-heard history of the ANSI Art Scene that thrived in the BBS world, where art was currency and battles waged over nothing more than pure talent.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088107556582103834" title="google.com">6</a> [google.com]: HPAC (Hacking Phreaking Anarchy Cracking) hears from some of the users of "underground" BBSes and their unique view of the world of information and computers.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8279040105497359938" title="google.com">7</a> [google.com]: Compression tells the story of the PKWARE/SEA legal battle of the late 1980s and how a fight that broke out over something as simple as data compression resulted in waylaid lives and lost opportunity.<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4358667732166276191" title="google.com">8</a> [google.com]: No Carrier wishes a fond farewell to the dial-up BBS and its integration into the Internet.</p><p>There is a <a href="http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/order/" title="bbsdocumentary.com">DVD version that can be ordered</a> [bbsdocumentary.com], or <a href="http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/warez/" title="bbsdocumentary.com">downloaded for free and legally</a> [bbsdocumentary.com] (hurray for <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org/" title="creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> [creativecommons.org]) with less contents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was online with many BBS ' with during dial-up modems days before they died because of the Internet .
/. [ slashdot.org ] has a few old stories about this awesome documentary from years ago : A Documentary About Bulletin Board Systems [ slashdot.org ] The BBS Documentary : A One Year Report [ slashdot.org ] 7 hour BBS Documentary Nearly Ready [ slashdot.org ] BBS Documentary Now Shipping [ slashdot.org ] Hundreds of Hours of BBS Documentary Interviews [ slashdot.org ] Google Video [ google.com ] has all the parts online : 1 [ google.com ] : Baud introduces the story of the beginning of the BBS , including interviews with Ward Christensen and Randy Suess , who used a snowstorm as an inspiration to change the world.2 [ google.com ] : Sysops and Users introduces the stories of the people who used BBSes , and lets them tell their own stories of living in this new world.3 [ google.com ] : Make it Pay covers the BBS industry that rose in the 1980 's and grew to fantastic heights before disappearing almost overnight.4 [ google.com ] : Fidonet covers the largest volunteer-run computer network in history , and the people who made it a joy and a political nightmare.5 [ google.com ] : Artscene tells the rarely-heard history of the ANSI Art Scene that thrived in the BBS world , where art was currency and battles waged over nothing more than pure talent.6 [ google.com ] : HPAC ( Hacking Phreaking Anarchy Cracking ) hears from some of the users of " underground " BBSes and their unique view of the world of information and computers.7 [ google.com ] : Compression tells the story of the PKWARE/SEA legal battle of the late 1980s and how a fight that broke out over something as simple as data compression resulted in waylaid lives and lost opportunity.8 [ google.com ] : No Carrier wishes a fond farewell to the dial-up BBS and its integration into the Internet.There is a DVD version that can be ordered [ bbsdocumentary.com ] , or downloaded for free and legally [ bbsdocumentary.com ] ( hurray for Creative Commons [ creativecommons.org ] ) with less contents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was online with many BBS' with during dial-up modems days before they died because of the Internet.
/. [slashdot.org] has a few old stories about this awesome documentary from years ago: A Documentary About Bulletin Board Systems [slashdot.org] The BBS Documentary: A One Year Report [slashdot.org] 7 hour BBS Documentary Nearly Ready [slashdot.org] BBS Documentary Now Shipping [slashdot.org] Hundreds of Hours of BBS Documentary Interviews [slashdot.org]Google Video [google.com] has all the parts online:1 [google.com]: Baud introduces the story of the beginning of the BBS, including interviews with Ward Christensen and Randy Suess, who used a snowstorm as an inspiration to change the world.2 [google.com]: Sysops and Users introduces the stories of the people who used BBSes, and lets them tell their own stories of living in this new world.3 [google.com]: Make it Pay covers the BBS industry that rose in the 1980's and grew to fantastic heights before disappearing almost overnight.4 [google.com]: Fidonet covers the largest volunteer-run computer network in history, and the people who made it a joy and a political nightmare.5 [google.com]: Artscene tells the rarely-heard history of the ANSI Art Scene that thrived in the BBS world, where art was currency and battles waged over nothing more than pure talent.6 [google.com]: HPAC (Hacking Phreaking Anarchy Cracking) hears from some of the users of "underground" BBSes and their unique view of the world of information and computers.7 [google.com]: Compression tells the story of the PKWARE/SEA legal battle of the late 1980s and how a fight that broke out over something as simple as data compression resulted in waylaid lives and lost opportunity.8 [google.com]: No Carrier wishes a fond farewell to the dial-up BBS and its integration into the Internet.There is a DVD version that can be ordered [bbsdocumentary.com], or downloaded for free and legally [bbsdocumentary.com] (hurray for Creative Commons [creativecommons.org]) with less contents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564716</id>
	<title>Re:My Modem Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261945740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a southern modem. You'll be whistling Dixie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a southern modem .
You 'll be whistling Dixie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a southern modem.
You'll be whistling Dixie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564330</id>
	<title>Old modem ad</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1261941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My web site <a href="http://ath0.com/" title="ath0.com">ATH0.com</a> [ath0.com] has an old modem ad on the front page, I scanned it from an 80s magazine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My web site ATH0.com [ ath0.com ] has an old modem ad on the front page , I scanned it from an 80s magazine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My web site ATH0.com [ath0.com] has an old modem ad on the front page, I scanned it from an 80s magazine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562926</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261926600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was the USR Courier HST modem that would do 19.2kbps. I seem to recall there was a HST+2400 bps modem, and then the "Dual Standard" HST+9600 bps, later firmware-updated to support 14.4kbps. But I could be totally wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up. I mostly want to forget those times. I remember my Microcom 2400bps+MNP5 all too well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( IIRC if you had a super badassed BBS then USR would kick you the Dual Standard modems at a not-unreasonable price. Only rich kids (or professionally-employed adults) could afford an HST modem, but few enough people had them to where it hardly mattered. I suspect some kids got them down in Juarez, if you know what I mean... a little floppy flipping</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the USR Courier HST modem that would do 19.2kbps .
I seem to recall there was a HST + 2400 bps modem , and then the " Dual Standard " HST + 9600 bps , later firmware-updated to support 14.4kbps .
But I could be totally wrong and I 'm too lazy to look it up .
I mostly want to forget those times .
I remember my Microcom 2400bps + MNP5 all too well .
: ( IIRC if you had a super badassed BBS then USR would kick you the Dual Standard modems at a not-unreasonable price .
Only rich kids ( or professionally-employed adults ) could afford an HST modem , but few enough people had them to where it hardly mattered .
I suspect some kids got them down in Juarez , if you know what I mean... a little floppy flipping</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the USR Courier HST modem that would do 19.2kbps.
I seem to recall there was a HST+2400 bps modem, and then the "Dual Standard" HST+9600 bps, later firmware-updated to support 14.4kbps.
But I could be totally wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up.
I mostly want to forget those times.
I remember my Microcom 2400bps+MNP5 all too well.
:( IIRC if you had a super badassed BBS then USR would kick you the Dual Standard modems at a not-unreasonable price.
Only rich kids (or professionally-employed adults) could afford an HST modem, but few enough people had them to where it hardly mattered.
I suspect some kids got them down in Juarez, if you know what I mean... a little floppy flipping</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560800</id>
	<title>Rubbish</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1261849920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be the brief history of the personal PC modem.</p><p>There was no mention of the tons of ISDN modems used until the late 90s.</p><p>No mention of Codex or Pairgain devices.  We had 64kbps, leased-line Codex modems humming along until, well, even today you'll find an odd one laying around.  And T-1 Pairgains (not technically models) are still the best way to service outlying buildings on most campuses.</p><p>I understand that not every article can be complete.  But you really can't talk about the history of modems without Pairgain (now ADC) and Codex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be the brief history of the personal PC modem.There was no mention of the tons of ISDN modems used until the late 90s.No mention of Codex or Pairgain devices .
We had 64kbps , leased-line Codex modems humming along until , well , even today you 'll find an odd one laying around .
And T-1 Pairgains ( not technically models ) are still the best way to service outlying buildings on most campuses.I understand that not every article can be complete .
But you really ca n't talk about the history of modems without Pairgain ( now ADC ) and Codex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be the brief history of the personal PC modem.There was no mention of the tons of ISDN modems used until the late 90s.No mention of Codex or Pairgain devices.
We had 64kbps, leased-line Codex modems humming along until, well, even today you'll find an odd one laying around.
And T-1 Pairgains (not technically models) are still the best way to service outlying buildings on most campuses.I understand that not every article can be complete.
But you really can't talk about the history of modems without Pairgain (now ADC) and Codex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561090</id>
	<title>Re:As a child of the 80s...</title>
	<author>aberkvam</author>
	<datestamp>1261854840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe you had to add a *70 after the AT</p></div><p>It depends on your telephone company.  If you have Touch Tone, you usually have to use *70 or #70.  If you still have pulse dialing, you have to use 1170.</p><p>The commas are also important.  Each comma adds a two-second pause (unless that's been modified in the modem's registers). Placing a comma or two after the *70 gives the telephone company time to give you a dial tone again so the phone number digits aren't lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you had to add a * 70 after the ATIt depends on your telephone company .
If you have Touch Tone , you usually have to use * 70 or # 70 .
If you still have pulse dialing , you have to use 1170.The commas are also important .
Each comma adds a two-second pause ( unless that 's been modified in the modem 's registers ) .
Placing a comma or two after the * 70 gives the telephone company time to give you a dial tone again so the phone number digits are n't lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you had to add a *70 after the ATIt depends on your telephone company.
If you have Touch Tone, you usually have to use *70 or #70.
If you still have pulse dialing, you have to use 1170.The commas are also important.
Each comma adds a two-second pause (unless that's been modified in the modem's registers).
Placing a comma or two after the *70 gives the telephone company time to give you a dial tone again so the phone number digits aren't lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564110</id>
	<title>Very slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261939500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The slowest modem I ever encountered run 50 baud over HF radio. It weighed maybe 15kg and was built using discrete analog components.</p><p>My first login was done at 1200/55, and my first Internet connect at 14k4...</p><p>My current ADSL manages 10M down, 1M8 up. Things have changed. A lot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The slowest modem I ever encountered run 50 baud over HF radio .
It weighed maybe 15kg and was built using discrete analog components.My first login was done at 1200/55 , and my first Internet connect at 14k4...My current ADSL manages 10M down , 1M8 up .
Things have changed .
A lot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slowest modem I ever encountered run 50 baud over HF radio.
It weighed maybe 15kg and was built using discrete analog components.My first login was done at 1200/55, and my first Internet connect at 14k4...My current ADSL manages 10M down, 1M8 up.
Things have changed.
A lot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561370</id>
	<title>Re:Modems are hard to come by now</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261946160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, you must not know how to use google...</p><p>You want a modem, you have but to only take out your credit card and go to
<a href="http://www.usr.com/products/modem/p-56kmodem-menu.asp" title="usr.com">US Robotics</a> [usr.com] and purchase one to suit your needs from the about $250.00 to 19.95.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you must not know how to use google...You want a modem , you have but to only take out your credit card and go to US Robotics [ usr.com ] and purchase one to suit your needs from the about $ 250.00 to 19.95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you must not know how to use google...You want a modem, you have but to only take out your credit card and go to
US Robotics [usr.com] and purchase one to suit your needs from the about $250.00 to 19.95.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</id>
	<title>Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1261849020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still a few of us left who grew up in the acoustic coupler era, where modems connected to the (back then standardized) handset, and really whistled and purred into the microphone.<br>Speeds?  We started with 110 baud (which back then was equivalent to bits-per-second, if you subtracted stop bits).  Then came 300 baud.<br>Then someone had an epiphany, and figured out that no-one could possibly type faster than 75 characters per second, and even if they could, the printer(!) that spit out whatever you typed wouldn't be able to.  So by reserving the low frequencies for upstream data and the high frequencies for downstream, you could achieve the blazing speed of 1200 baud down and 75 baud up.  The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long time, with way faster downloads than 300/300 could give.<br>Then came 1200/1200, 2400/2400, 4800 (which was really 2400 with compression), 9600, and then the Trailblazer, which was running at a ridiculously low baud rate (100 baud IIRC), but at so many parallel channels that it achieved ~18000 bps aggregate.  That was lightning fast!  Imagine almost 2 kB/s (unless something moved the other way at the same time, in which case speeds of course would drop).  The ASCII porn didn't stand a chance against that speed monster!<br>Then came the short-lived 38400, and finally the ubiquitous 56k modem.  Yawn.</p><p>In the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US).  Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still a few of us left who grew up in the acoustic coupler era , where modems connected to the ( back then standardized ) handset , and really whistled and purred into the microphone.Speeds ?
We started with 110 baud ( which back then was equivalent to bits-per-second , if you subtracted stop bits ) .
Then came 300 baud.Then someone had an epiphany , and figured out that no-one could possibly type faster than 75 characters per second , and even if they could , the printer ( !
) that spit out whatever you typed would n't be able to .
So by reserving the low frequencies for upstream data and the high frequencies for downstream , you could achieve the blazing speed of 1200 baud down and 75 baud up .
The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long time , with way faster downloads than 300/300 could give.Then came 1200/1200 , 2400/2400 , 4800 ( which was really 2400 with compression ) , 9600 , and then the Trailblazer , which was running at a ridiculously low baud rate ( 100 baud IIRC ) , but at so many parallel channels that it achieved ~ 18000 bps aggregate .
That was lightning fast !
Imagine almost 2 kB/s ( unless something moved the other way at the same time , in which case speeds of course would drop ) .
The ASCII porn did n't stand a chance against that speed monster ! Then came the short-lived 38400 , and finally the ubiquitous 56k modem .
Yawn.In the mid-90s , we got BRI ( ISDN , 2 * 64 kbps in most of the world , 2 * 56 kbps in the US ) .
Which pretty much ended the modem era , except for in the US and UK , where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still a few of us left who grew up in the acoustic coupler era, where modems connected to the (back then standardized) handset, and really whistled and purred into the microphone.Speeds?
We started with 110 baud (which back then was equivalent to bits-per-second, if you subtracted stop bits).
Then came 300 baud.Then someone had an epiphany, and figured out that no-one could possibly type faster than 75 characters per second, and even if they could, the printer(!
) that spit out whatever you typed wouldn't be able to.
So by reserving the low frequencies for upstream data and the high frequencies for downstream, you could achieve the blazing speed of 1200 baud down and 75 baud up.
The 1200/75 modem was a workhorse for a long time, with way faster downloads than 300/300 could give.Then came 1200/1200, 2400/2400, 4800 (which was really 2400 with compression), 9600, and then the Trailblazer, which was running at a ridiculously low baud rate (100 baud IIRC), but at so many parallel channels that it achieved ~18000 bps aggregate.
That was lightning fast!
Imagine almost 2 kB/s (unless something moved the other way at the same time, in which case speeds of course would drop).
The ASCII porn didn't stand a chance against that speed monster!Then came the short-lived 38400, and finally the ubiquitous 56k modem.
Yawn.In the mid-90s, we got BRI (ISDN, 2*64 kbps in most of the world, 2*56 kbps in the US).
Which pretty much ended the modem era, except for in the US and UK, where 56 kbps POTS modems reigned supreme until well after the millennium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561194</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1261856640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator. Hence it should be capitalized. This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC). Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....</p></div><p>Okay, okay, fair point, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People were tying up VOICE channels</p> </div><p>Come on, <i>that</i> one you just made up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word MODEM ( as the article indicates ) represents MOdulatorDEModulator .
Hence it should be capitalized .
This is also try of enCOderDECoder ( CODEC ) .
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Okay , okay , fair point , but ...People were tying up VOICE channels Come on , that one you just made up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator.
Hence it should be capitalized.
This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC).
Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....Okay, okay, fair point, but ...People were tying up VOICE channels Come on, that one you just made up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561578</id>
	<title>I love modems</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1261905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No I really do, I love modems. I grew up with them. And calling BBSes (and running one for several years) was really great.<br>I don't think I would have gotten into programming (my career) if it wasn't for the BBS scene of the 1990s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No I really do , I love modems .
I grew up with them .
And calling BBSes ( and running one for several years ) was really great.I do n't think I would have gotten into programming ( my career ) if it was n't for the BBS scene of the 1990s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I really do, I love modems.
I grew up with them.
And calling BBSes (and running one for several years) was really great.I don't think I would have gotten into programming (my career) if it wasn't for the BBS scene of the 1990s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561138</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261855740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the better innovations with modems, but one that was not heralded much was MNP3.  MNP5 is a superset and offered compression which helped things, but MNP3 dealt away with the aggravation of line noise, and this by itself made a lot of difference in file transfers.</p><p>ISDN did dent modem sales, but at the time in the mid 1990s, ISDN was fairly expensive (about $150-$300 a month.)  However, it had the advantage of very low latency.  Modems (and mom/pop ISPs) really didn't die off until cable and DSL connections became both widespread and decently inexpensive.</p><p>Ironically in the US, modems have not been driven away completely.  There are still plenty of areas that do not have cable or DSL access.  Sometimes using a cellular "modem" [1] provides a solution, but sometimes that doesn't work (especially in hilly areas).  Also, some people just don't do much with broadband, so they have downgraded to dialup because it is cheap.</p><p>[1]:  Technically it isn't a modem, but a CSU/DSU.  However, most people call the USB devices that plug into a laptop modems, even though they do no analog modulation or demodulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the better innovations with modems , but one that was not heralded much was MNP3 .
MNP5 is a superset and offered compression which helped things , but MNP3 dealt away with the aggravation of line noise , and this by itself made a lot of difference in file transfers.ISDN did dent modem sales , but at the time in the mid 1990s , ISDN was fairly expensive ( about $ 150- $ 300 a month .
) However , it had the advantage of very low latency .
Modems ( and mom/pop ISPs ) really did n't die off until cable and DSL connections became both widespread and decently inexpensive.Ironically in the US , modems have not been driven away completely .
There are still plenty of areas that do not have cable or DSL access .
Sometimes using a cellular " modem " [ 1 ] provides a solution , but sometimes that does n't work ( especially in hilly areas ) .
Also , some people just do n't do much with broadband , so they have downgraded to dialup because it is cheap .
[ 1 ] : Technically it is n't a modem , but a CSU/DSU .
However , most people call the USB devices that plug into a laptop modems , even though they do no analog modulation or demodulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the better innovations with modems, but one that was not heralded much was MNP3.
MNP5 is a superset and offered compression which helped things, but MNP3 dealt away with the aggravation of line noise, and this by itself made a lot of difference in file transfers.ISDN did dent modem sales, but at the time in the mid 1990s, ISDN was fairly expensive (about $150-$300 a month.
)  However, it had the advantage of very low latency.
Modems (and mom/pop ISPs) really didn't die off until cable and DSL connections became both widespread and decently inexpensive.Ironically in the US, modems have not been driven away completely.
There are still plenty of areas that do not have cable or DSL access.
Sometimes using a cellular "modem" [1] provides a solution, but sometimes that doesn't work (especially in hilly areas).
Also, some people just don't do much with broadband, so they have downgraded to dialup because it is cheap.
[1]:  Technically it isn't a modem, but a CSU/DSU.
However, most people call the USB devices that plug into a laptop modems, even though they do no analog modulation or demodulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561078</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261854660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You entirely missed the 14400 and  28800 era. Imposter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You entirely missed the 14400 and 28800 era .
Imposter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You entirely missed the 14400 and  28800 era.
Imposter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30570442</id>
	<title>Might it be independence?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262011860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't help but feel that we've lost something valuable.</p></div><p>Perhaps I'm just stating the obvious, but that thing would be (a feeling of, real or not) independence---that you could get by with your own mind, body and toolbox, without having to call upon experts whom you might feel have some power over you (the power to set a price if nothing else).</p><p>Does that resonate with you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but feel that we 've lost something valuable.Perhaps I 'm just stating the obvious , but that thing would be ( a feeling of , real or not ) independence---that you could get by with your own mind , body and toolbox , without having to call upon experts whom you might feel have some power over you ( the power to set a price if nothing else ) .Does that resonate with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but feel that we've lost something valuable.Perhaps I'm just stating the obvious, but that thing would be (a feeling of, real or not) independence---that you could get by with your own mind, body and toolbox, without having to call upon experts whom you might feel have some power over you (the power to set a price if nothing else).Does that resonate with you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566964</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1261920600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly, your comment contains more actual information, and is better written, than the 'article.'</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , your comment contains more actual information , and is better written , than the 'article .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, your comment contains more actual information, and is better written, than the 'article.
'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561150</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1261855860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The terminology works if you're talking about the interface between the modem and computer. This would really be working at 9600, 19200 or 56000 baud, the baseband signalling used by RS232 did not use multi-level or phase coding to send multiple bits per transition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The terminology works if you 're talking about the interface between the modem and computer .
This would really be working at 9600 , 19200 or 56000 baud , the baseband signalling used by RS232 did not use multi-level or phase coding to send multiple bits per transition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terminology works if you're talking about the interface between the modem and computer.
This would really be working at 9600, 19200 or 56000 baud, the baseband signalling used by RS232 did not use multi-level or phase coding to send multiple bits per transition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560832</id>
	<title>What!? No mention of AppleCat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261850400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The coolest modem of all time, and not even an honorable mention!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The coolest modem of all time , and not even an honorable mention !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coolest modem of all time, and not even an honorable mention!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561290</id>
	<title>Article pages make a 300 baud modem cry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261944600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article would take what, an hour to receive on a 300 baud modem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article would take what , an hour to receive on a 300 baud modem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article would take what, an hour to receive on a 300 baud modem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566250</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1261914300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come out to the bush in Australia, where 28.8k links can still be found where the telephone lines are bad enough. Luckily the national telephone monopoly has started rolling out HSPA services, although on a different band to its competitors so only its equipment will work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come out to the bush in Australia , where 28.8k links can still be found where the telephone lines are bad enough .
Luckily the national telephone monopoly has started rolling out HSPA services , although on a different band to its competitors so only its equipment will work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come out to the bush in Australia, where 28.8k links can still be found where the telephone lines are bad enough.
Luckily the national telephone monopoly has started rolling out HSPA services, although on a different band to its competitors so only its equipment will work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561230</id>
	<title>No mention of Telebit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261857240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What history of modems completely skips the Telebit Trailblazer?  Roughly 18 kbps in 1985 - many years before 14.4k modems became common.  Expensive enough to be out of reach of most BBS'ers, though.  But worth the money if you were doing UUCP over a long distance call every night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What history of modems completely skips the Telebit Trailblazer ?
Roughly 18 kbps in 1985 - many years before 14.4k modems became common .
Expensive enough to be out of reach of most BBS'ers , though .
But worth the money if you were doing UUCP over a long distance call every night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What history of modems completely skips the Telebit Trailblazer?
Roughly 18 kbps in 1985 - many years before 14.4k modems became common.
Expensive enough to be out of reach of most BBS'ers, though.
But worth the money if you were doing UUCP over a long distance call every night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568504</id>
	<title>Book reading speed influnced by modems.</title>
	<author>Lvdata</author>
	<datestamp>1261938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While growing up I started reading more and more for enjoyment. As modem technology improved, my reading speed HAD to increase to keep up with the modem, due to my inability to afford a com program with a scroll back buffer, due in part to the various terminal emulations that I wanted. I got to the point where I could read, remember and ace tests with my reading speed up to 14.4.  My first slow modem was a 1200, then 2400, 4800, and I skipped 9600 to go to 14.4. After that I could not keep up at a reading speed. I can skim faster then 14.4, but not read and remember. Anyone else's reading speeds influenced by their modem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While growing up I started reading more and more for enjoyment .
As modem technology improved , my reading speed HAD to increase to keep up with the modem , due to my inability to afford a com program with a scroll back buffer , due in part to the various terminal emulations that I wanted .
I got to the point where I could read , remember and ace tests with my reading speed up to 14.4 .
My first slow modem was a 1200 , then 2400 , 4800 , and I skipped 9600 to go to 14.4 .
After that I could not keep up at a reading speed .
I can skim faster then 14.4 , but not read and remember .
Anyone else 's reading speeds influenced by their modem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While growing up I started reading more and more for enjoyment.
As modem technology improved, my reading speed HAD to increase to keep up with the modem, due to my inability to afford a com program with a scroll back buffer, due in part to the various terminal emulations that I wanted.
I got to the point where I could read, remember and ace tests with my reading speed up to 14.4.
My first slow modem was a 1200, then 2400, 4800, and I skipped 9600 to go to 14.4.
After that I could not keep up at a reading speed.
I can skim faster then 14.4, but not read and remember.
Anyone else's reading speeds influenced by their modem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561684</id>
	<title>Re:Baud vs bps</title>
	<author>KingMotley</author>
	<datestamp>1261906320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed, and did not buffer. Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques. &lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>That all depends on what you were trying to achieve.  There certainly were modems that did flow control and buffering with speeds below 2400, however, it became more prevalent around that time because error correction, and data compression became wide spread.  Most reputable manufacturers doing 2400 baud all supported flow control, error correction, and data compression in their 2400 baud models (Hayes, USR).  There were error correcting 1200 baud modems, and there was specialty modems that did end-to-end flow control as well.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed , and did not buffer .
Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques .
That all depends on what you were trying to achieve .
There certainly were modems that did flow control and buffering with speeds below 2400 , however , it became more prevalent around that time because error correction , and data compression became wide spread .
Most reputable manufacturers doing 2400 baud all supported flow control , error correction , and data compression in their 2400 baud models ( Hayes , USR ) .
There were error correcting 1200 baud modems , and there was specialty modems that did end-to-end flow control as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MODEMs at 2400baud or less did not require flow control -- they worked at serial line speed, and did not buffer.
Modems at 4800bps and higher did buffering and would do various flow-control techniques.
That all depends on what you were trying to achieve.
There certainly were modems that did flow control and buffering with speeds below 2400, however, it became more prevalent around that time because error correction, and data compression became wide spread.
Most reputable manufacturers doing 2400 baud all supported flow control, error correction, and data compression in their 2400 baud models (Hayes, USR).
There were error correcting 1200 baud modems, and there was specialty modems that did end-to-end flow control as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569292</id>
	<title>Big talker: Step inside, &amp; face the music</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30560500#30562472" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30560500#30562472</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1490078&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;pid = 30560500 # 30562472 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30560500#30562472 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561632</id>
	<title>Re:For years, Hayes ended press releases with +++A</title>
	<author>soundguy</author>
	<datestamp>1261905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also neglected to mention that 56k was strictly theoretical and in the real world, it was normally capped at 53k max to avoid crosstalk.</p><p>Did anyone else have one of the "shotgun" modems in the late 90's - a pair of 56k chips on a single card? You could plug it into two separate POTS lines and connect to an ISP that supported aggregation to get a genuine 106 kbsp down and 67 up. I was on Netcom at the time, which supported aggregation. You could actually have call-waiting on one line and when someone called, the card would drop back to one channel and the phone would ring. It was actually pretty slick and I ran it for a year or so until DSL was finally available in my neighborhood at a blistering 256k.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also neglected to mention that 56k was strictly theoretical and in the real world , it was normally capped at 53k max to avoid crosstalk.Did anyone else have one of the " shotgun " modems in the late 90 's - a pair of 56k chips on a single card ?
You could plug it into two separate POTS lines and connect to an ISP that supported aggregation to get a genuine 106 kbsp down and 67 up .
I was on Netcom at the time , which supported aggregation .
You could actually have call-waiting on one line and when someone called , the card would drop back to one channel and the phone would ring .
It was actually pretty slick and I ran it for a year or so until DSL was finally available in my neighborhood at a blistering 256k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also neglected to mention that 56k was strictly theoretical and in the real world, it was normally capped at 53k max to avoid crosstalk.Did anyone else have one of the "shotgun" modems in the late 90's - a pair of 56k chips on a single card?
You could plug it into two separate POTS lines and connect to an ISP that supported aggregation to get a genuine 106 kbsp down and 67 up.
I was on Netcom at the time, which supported aggregation.
You could actually have call-waiting on one line and when someone called, the card would drop back to one channel and the phone would ring.
It was actually pretty slick and I ran it for a year or so until DSL was finally available in my neighborhood at a blistering 256k.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564638</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1261944660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The worst was when I went to college in the fall of '93. I got used to connecting to local boards at 14.4k... but the college's access consisted of a bank of eight 2400 bps modems wired to a 56k leased line uplink. No PPP/SLIP, either, so any files that were downloaded had to be to the university's machine.  There were two ways to get files: small ones were retrieved by zmodem, large ones by going down to the computer lab and sticking floppies in the NeXTs.  Then, two years later, we had ethernet in the dorms... it was a bit of a change, you might say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst was when I went to college in the fall of '93 .
I got used to connecting to local boards at 14.4k... but the college 's access consisted of a bank of eight 2400 bps modems wired to a 56k leased line uplink .
No PPP/SLIP , either , so any files that were downloaded had to be to the university 's machine .
There were two ways to get files : small ones were retrieved by zmodem , large ones by going down to the computer lab and sticking floppies in the NeXTs .
Then , two years later , we had ethernet in the dorms... it was a bit of a change , you might say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst was when I went to college in the fall of '93.
I got used to connecting to local boards at 14.4k... but the college's access consisted of a bank of eight 2400 bps modems wired to a 56k leased line uplink.
No PPP/SLIP, either, so any files that were downloaded had to be to the university's machine.
There were two ways to get files: small ones were retrieved by zmodem, large ones by going down to the computer lab and sticking floppies in the NeXTs.
Then, two years later, we had ethernet in the dorms... it was a bit of a change, you might say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568060</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>TClevenger</author>
	<datestamp>1261931580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fastest HST modems got up to 16,800 bps.  Since they had v.42bis compression, you obviously wanted to have your PC connecting to them at a faster rate to handle the burst of compressed data.  To maintain compatibility with some terminals or BBS software that couldn't handle a connect string like "CONNECT 16800/ARQ/HST", you could just have it report the DTE speed, i.e. "CONNECT 19200".  A lot of people confused this with actually connecting at 19,200 bps.
</p><p>
I was one of the first kids on the block, at about 16, to get a Courier HST 14,400 modem, through sheer luck.  (Guy sold it for cheap because it would overheat and fail and was out of warranty, but USR took pity on me and swapped it out for free for a nice HST 16,800.  Great folks.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fastest HST modems got up to 16,800 bps .
Since they had v.42bis compression , you obviously wanted to have your PC connecting to them at a faster rate to handle the burst of compressed data .
To maintain compatibility with some terminals or BBS software that could n't handle a connect string like " CONNECT 16800/ARQ/HST " , you could just have it report the DTE speed , i.e .
" CONNECT 19200 " .
A lot of people confused this with actually connecting at 19,200 bps .
I was one of the first kids on the block , at about 16 , to get a Courier HST 14,400 modem , through sheer luck .
( Guy sold it for cheap because it would overheat and fail and was out of warranty , but USR took pity on me and swapped it out for free for a nice HST 16,800 .
Great folks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fastest HST modems got up to 16,800 bps.
Since they had v.42bis compression, you obviously wanted to have your PC connecting to them at a faster rate to handle the burst of compressed data.
To maintain compatibility with some terminals or BBS software that couldn't handle a connect string like "CONNECT 16800/ARQ/HST", you could just have it report the DTE speed, i.e.
"CONNECT 19200".
A lot of people confused this with actually connecting at 19,200 bps.
I was one of the first kids on the block, at about 16, to get a Courier HST 14,400 modem, through sheer luck.
(Guy sold it for cheap because it would overheat and fail and was out of warranty, but USR took pity on me and swapped it out for free for a nice HST 16,800.
Great folks.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010</id>
	<title>Reminds me of my first Linux Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261853580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thinking about modems reminds me of my first Linux admin job. I started out as a junior admin for a dial-up ISP in my hometown (that should be read as "flunky" since there were only two of us: my supervisor and I). Managing a server and a modem bank, all fed by T1. Those were the days. While knowledge of dial-up technologies stopped serving me long ago, at least I got to cut my teeth on networking and Linux, and I have been able to capitalize on those ever since. Going to work there got me a free dial-up account, which put an end to my long reign of stealing dial-up from those I knew. Ah, those were the days. Now I have to pay someone for the ability to steal things from the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking about modems reminds me of my first Linux admin job .
I started out as a junior admin for a dial-up ISP in my hometown ( that should be read as " flunky " since there were only two of us : my supervisor and I ) .
Managing a server and a modem bank , all fed by T1 .
Those were the days .
While knowledge of dial-up technologies stopped serving me long ago , at least I got to cut my teeth on networking and Linux , and I have been able to capitalize on those ever since .
Going to work there got me a free dial-up account , which put an end to my long reign of stealing dial-up from those I knew .
Ah , those were the days .
Now I have to pay someone for the ability to steal things from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking about modems reminds me of my first Linux admin job.
I started out as a junior admin for a dial-up ISP in my hometown (that should be read as "flunky" since there were only two of us: my supervisor and I).
Managing a server and a modem bank, all fed by T1.
Those were the days.
While knowledge of dial-up technologies stopped serving me long ago, at least I got to cut my teeth on networking and Linux, and I have been able to capitalize on those ever since.
Going to work there got me a free dial-up account, which put an end to my long reign of stealing dial-up from those I knew.
Ah, those were the days.
Now I have to pay someone for the ability to steal things from the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565398</id>
	<title>Re:Lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated...</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1261907280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the reason 56 k modems ran at 53.3k is because of restrictions on how much power they could transmit. Any more power than what they were limited to would cause unacceptable crosstalk with nearby lines in bundles.</p><p>Also, isn't it possible to put more levels per transition by simply increasing power levels? This would mean that the 56k limit isn't an absolute max, it could theoretically be exceeded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the reason 56 k modems ran at 53.3k is because of restrictions on how much power they could transmit .
Any more power than what they were limited to would cause unacceptable crosstalk with nearby lines in bundles.Also , is n't it possible to put more levels per transition by simply increasing power levels ?
This would mean that the 56k limit is n't an absolute max , it could theoretically be exceeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the reason 56 k modems ran at 53.3k is because of restrictions on how much power they could transmit.
Any more power than what they were limited to would cause unacceptable crosstalk with nearby lines in bundles.Also, isn't it possible to put more levels per transition by simply increasing power levels?
This would mean that the 56k limit isn't an absolute max, it could theoretically be exceeded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562318</id>
	<title>HPY time</title>
	<author>jones\_supa</author>
	<datestamp>1261916280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In late 90s the biggest telephone operator in southern Finland was called HPY. The company had such rates that would allow you to have the first 30 minutes of a call for a fixed price. After that a per-minute rate kicked in. So it was actually a common practice for finns to stay online a bit over 29 minutes at a time, then shout something like "hpy" on BBS/IRC and reconnect. Funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In late 90s the biggest telephone operator in southern Finland was called HPY .
The company had such rates that would allow you to have the first 30 minutes of a call for a fixed price .
After that a per-minute rate kicked in .
So it was actually a common practice for finns to stay online a bit over 29 minutes at a time , then shout something like " hpy " on BBS/IRC and reconnect .
Funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In late 90s the biggest telephone operator in southern Finland was called HPY.
The company had such rates that would allow you to have the first 30 minutes of a call for a fixed price.
After that a per-minute rate kicked in.
So it was actually a common practice for finns to stay online a bit over 29 minutes at a time, then shout something like "hpy" on BBS/IRC and reconnect.
Funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1261848120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>how much I miss my original mod [NO CARRIER]</htmltext>
<tokenext>how much I miss my original mod [ NO CARRIER ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how much I miss my original mod [NO CARRIER]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560828</id>
	<title>The did have 1200 baud modems in the 1970s</title>
	<author>NixieBunny</author>
	<datestamp>1261850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had a 1200 baud modem in 1977 at the high school I attended in Tucson. It was a UDS201B, running over a leased 4-wire line. The terminal was a glass teletype made by a local company called TEC. It was blue and had the marvelous feature of CTRL-H to backspace. <p> The computer was a DECsystem10. It was difficult to keep up with the blinding speed of the text scrolling past on the screen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a 1200 baud modem in 1977 at the high school I attended in Tucson .
It was a UDS201B , running over a leased 4-wire line .
The terminal was a glass teletype made by a local company called TEC .
It was blue and had the marvelous feature of CTRL-H to backspace .
The computer was a DECsystem10 .
It was difficult to keep up with the blinding speed of the text scrolling past on the screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a 1200 baud modem in 1977 at the high school I attended in Tucson.
It was a UDS201B, running over a leased 4-wire line.
The terminal was a glass teletype made by a local company called TEC.
It was blue and had the marvelous feature of CTRL-H to backspace.
The computer was a DECsystem10.
It was difficult to keep up with the blinding speed of the text scrolling past on the screen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900</id>
	<title>Oh, for the "good old days"</title>
	<author>ihuntrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1261851420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few friends and I were talking about our days on dialup when we were growing up. One friend was commenting on not noticing the download time on a 5 meg file, and how he complains when his download speeds are 500 k per second now. We had a little fun recalling our top-out speeds of 4.6 k per second, and the magical "1 meg every six minutes" rate we had all calculated growing up.
<br> <br>
We all agreed that in a way, it is almost a shame that kids today are growing up with remarkably better technology than we had at their age (and it hasn't been that long ago that we were their age). We all sort of miss dealing with cobbled together and salvaged parts, trying to eek out any performance we could from our machines. One of the friends present recalled helping me overclock my 33 mhz machine to 36 mhz (woohooo! A 10\% gain) and how excited we were.
<br> <br>
These days, my cell phone has more computing power than the first three computers that I owned, and a much faster data transfer rate. The old technology still amuses me though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few friends and I were talking about our days on dialup when we were growing up .
One friend was commenting on not noticing the download time on a 5 meg file , and how he complains when his download speeds are 500 k per second now .
We had a little fun recalling our top-out speeds of 4.6 k per second , and the magical " 1 meg every six minutes " rate we had all calculated growing up .
We all agreed that in a way , it is almost a shame that kids today are growing up with remarkably better technology than we had at their age ( and it has n't been that long ago that we were their age ) .
We all sort of miss dealing with cobbled together and salvaged parts , trying to eek out any performance we could from our machines .
One of the friends present recalled helping me overclock my 33 mhz machine to 36 mhz ( woohooo !
A 10 \ % gain ) and how excited we were .
These days , my cell phone has more computing power than the first three computers that I owned , and a much faster data transfer rate .
The old technology still amuses me though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few friends and I were talking about our days on dialup when we were growing up.
One friend was commenting on not noticing the download time on a 5 meg file, and how he complains when his download speeds are 500 k per second now.
We had a little fun recalling our top-out speeds of 4.6 k per second, and the magical "1 meg every six minutes" rate we had all calculated growing up.
We all agreed that in a way, it is almost a shame that kids today are growing up with remarkably better technology than we had at their age (and it hasn't been that long ago that we were their age).
We all sort of miss dealing with cobbled together and salvaged parts, trying to eek out any performance we could from our machines.
One of the friends present recalled helping me overclock my 33 mhz machine to 36 mhz (woohooo!
A 10\% gain) and how excited we were.
These days, my cell phone has more computing power than the first three computers that I owned, and a much faster data transfer rate.
The old technology still amuses me though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568686</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that more and more websites are filling up with bloated junk that dailup speed just cannot practically handle. And if you turn off graphics and flash, then certain graphical buttons and navigation aides were often invisible. You can get away with it if you only stick to certain lean sites, but outside of those, it's a bear. (I had to use dial-up for a while not too long ago after we first moved in to a new house.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that more and more websites are filling up with bloated junk that dailup speed just can not practically handle .
And if you turn off graphics and flash , then certain graphical buttons and navigation aides were often invisible .
You can get away with it if you only stick to certain lean sites , but outside of those , it 's a bear .
( I had to use dial-up for a while not too long ago after we first moved in to a new house .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that more and more websites are filling up with bloated junk that dailup speed just cannot practically handle.
And if you turn off graphics and flash, then certain graphical buttons and navigation aides were often invisible.
You can get away with it if you only stick to certain lean sites, but outside of those, it's a bear.
(I had to use dial-up for a while not too long ago after we first moved in to a new house.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561000</id>
	<title>Horrible...</title>
	<author>Hylandr</author>
	<datestamp>1261853520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article sis complete rubbish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article sis complete rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article sis complete rubbish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076</id>
	<title>Modems are hard to come by now</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1261854660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trying to put together an inexpensive homebrew computer-to-transceiver audio interface for digital radio transmissions and needed a pair of audio frequency transformers. I knew that all POTS line modems had a transformer in them that would work and I thought that this would be a cheap source for parts that cost about ten bucks apiece new. Of course, I had just recently sent all my old modems to the recycler so I started asking around to see if anyone had a modem that they wanted to get rid of. Out of the more than 20 people I asked, not a single person still had one.</p><p>Hard to believe that only ten years ago the modem ruled supreme when it came to Internet access. Now you can't even find one to cannibalize.</p><p>KJ6BSO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to put together an inexpensive homebrew computer-to-transceiver audio interface for digital radio transmissions and needed a pair of audio frequency transformers .
I knew that all POTS line modems had a transformer in them that would work and I thought that this would be a cheap source for parts that cost about ten bucks apiece new .
Of course , I had just recently sent all my old modems to the recycler so I started asking around to see if anyone had a modem that they wanted to get rid of .
Out of the more than 20 people I asked , not a single person still had one.Hard to believe that only ten years ago the modem ruled supreme when it came to Internet access .
Now you ca n't even find one to cannibalize.KJ6BSO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to put together an inexpensive homebrew computer-to-transceiver audio interface for digital radio transmissions and needed a pair of audio frequency transformers.
I knew that all POTS line modems had a transformer in them that would work and I thought that this would be a cheap source for parts that cost about ten bucks apiece new.
Of course, I had just recently sent all my old modems to the recycler so I started asking around to see if anyone had a modem that they wanted to get rid of.
Out of the more than 20 people I asked, not a single person still had one.Hard to believe that only ten years ago the modem ruled supreme when it came to Internet access.
Now you can't even find one to cannibalize.KJ6BSO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563206</id>
	<title>Re:Lady, there ain't nothin' so complicated...</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1261930140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>56k was the pinnacle of modem technology.  The phone line could NOT support much more than 56k using standard dial-up technology.  Of course you had your flex and you had your x2, you could sometimes get around 60k or even 70k if the end software supported it and you were linked on perfect noise free lines.  The problem was that the dial-up technology was ancient.  We had the technology in the 1970's to make ISP modem pools.  It never really went farther than that, barring x2 and flex and incremental increases in speed.  We had the technology, but not the knowledge.</p><p>Then we hit a wall at 56k.</p><p>We actually had to develop the technology for DSL.  The idea was formed in the early 80's, but until we got pretty good with laser communications and making really fast switching circuits, we couldn't develop it.  Now we have DSL that can get 10MBps by tacking on faster and faster components to both ends.  Ultimately, we'll run into the same wall again.  We'll have the idea for how to go faster, but not the technology.  We'll have gold plated connectors on both sides, and oxidized wire zig-zagging between neon signs connecting the sides to each other.  If we want to keep going with phone lines, we'll probably have to lay new lines or experience some major breakthrough in communications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>56k was the pinnacle of modem technology .
The phone line could NOT support much more than 56k using standard dial-up technology .
Of course you had your flex and you had your x2 , you could sometimes get around 60k or even 70k if the end software supported it and you were linked on perfect noise free lines .
The problem was that the dial-up technology was ancient .
We had the technology in the 1970 's to make ISP modem pools .
It never really went farther than that , barring x2 and flex and incremental increases in speed .
We had the technology , but not the knowledge.Then we hit a wall at 56k.We actually had to develop the technology for DSL .
The idea was formed in the early 80 's , but until we got pretty good with laser communications and making really fast switching circuits , we could n't develop it .
Now we have DSL that can get 10MBps by tacking on faster and faster components to both ends .
Ultimately , we 'll run into the same wall again .
We 'll have the idea for how to go faster , but not the technology .
We 'll have gold plated connectors on both sides , and oxidized wire zig-zagging between neon signs connecting the sides to each other .
If we want to keep going with phone lines , we 'll probably have to lay new lines or experience some major breakthrough in communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>56k was the pinnacle of modem technology.
The phone line could NOT support much more than 56k using standard dial-up technology.
Of course you had your flex and you had your x2, you could sometimes get around 60k or even 70k if the end software supported it and you were linked on perfect noise free lines.
The problem was that the dial-up technology was ancient.
We had the technology in the 1970's to make ISP modem pools.
It never really went farther than that, barring x2 and flex and incremental increases in speed.
We had the technology, but not the knowledge.Then we hit a wall at 56k.We actually had to develop the technology for DSL.
The idea was formed in the early 80's, but until we got pretty good with laser communications and making really fast switching circuits, we couldn't develop it.
Now we have DSL that can get 10MBps by tacking on faster and faster components to both ends.
Ultimately, we'll run into the same wall again.
We'll have the idea for how to go faster, but not the technology.
We'll have gold plated connectors on both sides, and oxidized wire zig-zagging between neon signs connecting the sides to each other.
If we want to keep going with phone lines, we'll probably have to lay new lines or experience some major breakthrough in communications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563242</id>
	<title>Re:Acoustic coupler era and POTS!</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1261930620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I developed a 300 baud modem for the (then) brand new RCA data terminal back around 1980.  The trickiest part of this thing was that the filters had to be designed and made from discrete components.</p><p>The plant manager saw my design which had precision components and he had a fit.  His instructions were, "Use the components we have in the stock room".  He also saw the line transformer and he said, "This is the age of semiconductors, get rid of that transformer".</p><p>I spent weeks researching how to replace that transformer with a semiconductor device that wouldn't distort the signal, operate bilaterally (in and out), and withstand the the 10,000 volt pulse that the FCC required for testing.  I finally found such a beast, so I gave the manager a choice...  Use the 6 cent transformer, or replace it with a $40 semiconductor.</p><p>My complaints about using non-precision components fell on deaf ears, so I figured the only way to prove that this wouldn't work would be to build a prototype and show that it would fail.  To my dismay the first prototype worked flawlessly.  I was told to build 10 more for FCC testing but not a single one of these worked even though the frequency response curves were all on the mark.  I finally discovered that the phase response was a mess.  I finally convinced them to use precision components.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I developed a 300 baud modem for the ( then ) brand new RCA data terminal back around 1980 .
The trickiest part of this thing was that the filters had to be designed and made from discrete components.The plant manager saw my design which had precision components and he had a fit .
His instructions were , " Use the components we have in the stock room " .
He also saw the line transformer and he said , " This is the age of semiconductors , get rid of that transformer " .I spent weeks researching how to replace that transformer with a semiconductor device that would n't distort the signal , operate bilaterally ( in and out ) , and withstand the the 10,000 volt pulse that the FCC required for testing .
I finally found such a beast , so I gave the manager a choice... Use the 6 cent transformer , or replace it with a $ 40 semiconductor.My complaints about using non-precision components fell on deaf ears , so I figured the only way to prove that this would n't work would be to build a prototype and show that it would fail .
To my dismay the first prototype worked flawlessly .
I was told to build 10 more for FCC testing but not a single one of these worked even though the frequency response curves were all on the mark .
I finally discovered that the phase response was a mess .
I finally convinced them to use precision components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I developed a 300 baud modem for the (then) brand new RCA data terminal back around 1980.
The trickiest part of this thing was that the filters had to be designed and made from discrete components.The plant manager saw my design which had precision components and he had a fit.
His instructions were, "Use the components we have in the stock room".
He also saw the line transformer and he said, "This is the age of semiconductors, get rid of that transformer".I spent weeks researching how to replace that transformer with a semiconductor device that wouldn't distort the signal, operate bilaterally (in and out), and withstand the the 10,000 volt pulse that the FCC required for testing.
I finally found such a beast, so I gave the manager a choice...  Use the 6 cent transformer, or replace it with a $40 semiconductor.My complaints about using non-precision components fell on deaf ears, so I figured the only way to prove that this wouldn't work would be to build a prototype and show that it would fail.
To my dismay the first prototype worked flawlessly.
I was told to build 10 more for FCC testing but not a single one of these worked even though the frequency response curves were all on the mark.
I finally discovered that the phase response was a mess.
I finally convinced them to use precision components.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563856</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible</title>
	<author>Nezer</author>
	<datestamp>1261936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow. Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it, it's technically wrong throughout.</p><p>Maury</p></div><p>Why be redundant? You already mentioned the source was Wikipedia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it , it 's technically wrong throughout.MauryWhy be redundant ?
You already mentioned the source was Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Not only does it simply rip off the Wikipedia without crediting it, it's technically wrong throughout.MauryWhy be redundant?
You already mentioned the source was Wikipedia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561364</id>
	<title>My Modem Story</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261946040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once worked at a place that had a DEC/VAX mini with a bank of about 8 modems for VT100-compatible terminals. If there were modem complaints such as dial-in problems, I had to first figure out which modem was connected to which phone number. Others didn't always keep the map up-to-date. Plus, it used busy-roll-over.</p><p>The test phone was a ways away from the modem bank for the VAX minicomputer, so I had to keep the modem trying to connect long enough until I got there to see which modem answered the call (via LED). The only easy way I found to do this was to <b>manually whistle</b> an acceptable modem tone into the phone in order to trick the modem into thinking I was a modem trying to connect. This would keep it trying long enough to allow me to run from the test phone to the modem bank. It had to be the right pitch and wavering to work most of the time. I got pretty good at it after a while. <b>I learned to "speak modem"</b> a bit.</p><p>A computer-room technician once saw me whistling modem sounds into the phone and running back and forth. I later told him why, and he told me I was nuts and mumbled something about whistling sweat nothings to my robotic girlfriends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once worked at a place that had a DEC/VAX mini with a bank of about 8 modems for VT100-compatible terminals .
If there were modem complaints such as dial-in problems , I had to first figure out which modem was connected to which phone number .
Others did n't always keep the map up-to-date .
Plus , it used busy-roll-over.The test phone was a ways away from the modem bank for the VAX minicomputer , so I had to keep the modem trying to connect long enough until I got there to see which modem answered the call ( via LED ) .
The only easy way I found to do this was to manually whistle an acceptable modem tone into the phone in order to trick the modem into thinking I was a modem trying to connect .
This would keep it trying long enough to allow me to run from the test phone to the modem bank .
It had to be the right pitch and wavering to work most of the time .
I got pretty good at it after a while .
I learned to " speak modem " a bit.A computer-room technician once saw me whistling modem sounds into the phone and running back and forth .
I later told him why , and he told me I was nuts and mumbled something about whistling sweat nothings to my robotic girlfriends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once worked at a place that had a DEC/VAX mini with a bank of about 8 modems for VT100-compatible terminals.
If there were modem complaints such as dial-in problems, I had to first figure out which modem was connected to which phone number.
Others didn't always keep the map up-to-date.
Plus, it used busy-roll-over.The test phone was a ways away from the modem bank for the VAX minicomputer, so I had to keep the modem trying to connect long enough until I got there to see which modem answered the call (via LED).
The only easy way I found to do this was to manually whistle an acceptable modem tone into the phone in order to trick the modem into thinking I was a modem trying to connect.
This would keep it trying long enough to allow me to run from the test phone to the modem bank.
It had to be the right pitch and wavering to work most of the time.
I got pretty good at it after a while.
I learned to "speak modem" a bit.A computer-room technician once saw me whistling modem sounds into the phone and running back and forth.
I later told him why, and he told me I was nuts and mumbled something about whistling sweat nothings to my robotic girlfriends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562498</id>
	<title>Homemade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261919640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the early days hobbyists had to build their own modems. I say 'Hobbyist' because that is all there was in the days of s100 and CP/M or Northstar DOS when micro computers only came in kit form. The PennyWhistle was a favorite as is was a feature article in Popular Electronics. The AppleCat was another popular hobbyist modem that was made popular with the Apple II.</p><p>I setup the original BBS system in the late 70's for Ward Christensen and Kieth Peterson called CBBS in a computer store in Royal Oak, Michigan using a Bell 103 modem.</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the early days hobbyists had to build their own modems .
I say 'Hobbyist ' because that is all there was in the days of s100 and CP/M or Northstar DOS when micro computers only came in kit form .
The PennyWhistle was a favorite as is was a feature article in Popular Electronics .
The AppleCat was another popular hobbyist modem that was made popular with the Apple II.I setup the original BBS system in the late 70 's for Ward Christensen and Kieth Peterson called CBBS in a computer store in Royal Oak , Michigan using a Bell 103 modem.Now get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the early days hobbyists had to build their own modems.
I say 'Hobbyist' because that is all there was in the days of s100 and CP/M or Northstar DOS when micro computers only came in kit form.
The PennyWhistle was a favorite as is was a feature article in Popular Electronics.
The AppleCat was another popular hobbyist modem that was made popular with the Apple II.I setup the original BBS system in the late 70's for Ward Christensen and Kieth Peterson called CBBS in a computer store in Royal Oak, Michigan using a Bell 103 modem.Now get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30567532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30575254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30570442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30572098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30599900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30574058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30576322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_0420217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30572098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30564214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30570442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30574058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30575254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30573798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30599900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30568686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30566312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30562688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30567532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30576322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30621146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30560828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30565108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30563248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_0420217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30561230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_0420217.30569158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
