<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_1348202</id>
	<title>Confessions of an Internet "Shock Jock"</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1267021980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader followed up on the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Critic-Outed-As-Fraud?art\_pos=3&amp;art\_pos=3">Windows memory-leak fraud scandal</a>, which is worth reading before you read the perpetrator's justification.   <i>"Randall C. Kennedy <a href="http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/editorial-confessions-of-internet-shock.html">comes clean about his past</a>, his relationship to Craig Barth and how it all came tumbling down. Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader followed up on the Windows memory-leak fraud scandal , which is worth reading before you read the perpetrator 's justification .
" Randall C. Kennedy comes clean about his past , his relationship to Craig Barth and how it all came tumbling down .
Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that 's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader followed up on the Windows memory-leak fraud scandal, which is worth reading before you read the perpetrator's justification.
"Randall C. Kennedy comes clean about his past, his relationship to Craig Barth and how it all came tumbling down.
Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262000</id>
	<title>From Journalist to Shock Jock in 60 seconds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see the writing on the wall</p><p>Journalist's are corporate for profit liars.<br>Journalist Bloggers are all "domestic terrorists, and conspiracy theorists"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the writing on the wallJournalist 's are corporate for profit liars.Journalist Bloggers are all " domestic terrorists , and conspiracy theorists "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the writing on the wallJournalist's are corporate for profit liars.Journalist Bloggers are all "domestic terrorists, and conspiracy theorists"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259274</id>
	<title>Re:No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Emphasis mine.)  It seems like he has a reasonably technical background.  What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)?  Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.</p></div><p>Slashdot has people with most likely even more technical backgrounds. It tells something that he never tells what he has found (with his "reasonably technical background"), and that he acknowledged "XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications". He didn't mention what kind of RAM usage is full, never said anything about SuperFetch or anything else. He practically knew nothing but just shout out bullshit. He even says it himself:</p><p>"The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Emphasis mine .
) It seems like he has a reasonably technical background .
What has he found that can not be explained by SuperFetch ( high memory usage ) and Native Command Queuing ( backlogged disk I/O queue ) ?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.Slashdot has people with most likely even more technical backgrounds .
It tells something that he never tells what he has found ( with his " reasonably technical background " ) , and that he acknowledged " XPnet 's data could n't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself , or an increased number of applications " .
He did n't mention what kind of RAM usage is full , never said anything about SuperFetch or anything else .
He practically knew nothing but just shout out bullshit .
He even says it himself : " The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy , and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Emphasis mine.
)  It seems like he has a reasonably technical background.
What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.Slashdot has people with most likely even more technical backgrounds.
It tells something that he never tells what he has found (with his "reasonably technical background"), and that he acknowledged "XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications".
He didn't mention what kind of RAM usage is full, never said anything about SuperFetch or anything else.
He practically knew nothing but just shout out bullshit.
He even says it himself:"The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263078</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265142060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno... personally, I come to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for the entertainment that comments provide, not so much for the stories themselves - there are plenty other places where I can read the news alone, usually long before they even hit the front page here.</p><p>And in terms of comments, that story was certainly an interesting one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno... personally , I come to / .
for the entertainment that comments provide , not so much for the stories themselves - there are plenty other places where I can read the news alone , usually long before they even hit the front page here.And in terms of comments , that story was certainly an interesting one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno... personally, I come to /.
for the entertainment that comments provide, not so much for the stories themselves - there are plenty other places where I can read the news alone, usually long before they even hit the front page here.And in terms of comments, that story was certainly an interesting one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267160</id>
	<title>Re:Time to move on...</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He's gotta deal with the fallout over what he did, professionally and in public - and IMO, that's enough.</p></div></blockquote><p>

No he doesn't, he didn't admit it and take responsibility, he admitted it and tried to deflect responsibility with the age old "But I'm the victim in all this" excuse with several pages of long winded self adsorbed ranting.<br> <br>

He's got a long career ahead of him in mainstream journalism now he's proven he has the two most important traits of any modern journalist, 1. he has not hang-ups about bold faced lying and 2. knows how to deflect attention away from any lies they were caught out on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's got ta deal with the fallout over what he did , professionally and in public - and IMO , that 's enough .
No he does n't , he did n't admit it and take responsibility , he admitted it and tried to deflect responsibility with the age old " But I 'm the victim in all this " excuse with several pages of long winded self adsorbed ranting .
He 's got a long career ahead of him in mainstream journalism now he 's proven he has the two most important traits of any modern journalist , 1. he has not hang-ups about bold faced lying and 2. knows how to deflect attention away from any lies they were caught out on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's gotta deal with the fallout over what he did, professionally and in public - and IMO, that's enough.
No he doesn't, he didn't admit it and take responsibility, he admitted it and tried to deflect responsibility with the age old "But I'm the victim in all this" excuse with several pages of long winded self adsorbed ranting.
He's got a long career ahead of him in mainstream journalism now he's proven he has the two most important traits of any modern journalist, 1. he has not hang-ups about bold faced lying and 2. knows how to deflect attention away from any lies they were caught out on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259468</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Phoenixlol</author>
	<datestamp>1265127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude has ego problems, but then again... who doesn't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude has ego problems , but then again... who does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude has ego problems, but then again... who doesn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262464</id>
	<title>I have it on good authoritee that you are a commun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have it on good authoritee that you are a communist subversive with plans to infiltrate Ben &amp; Jerry's and have it produce RED ice cream.  That is a matter of fact.  I have this on good authoritee.</p><p>The difference is, there are too many stupid people that believe and repeat anything.  Even that.  Because that was and is true, because you are.  See, more believers.  There's no stopping this.  Face it.  100 IQ means a whole lotta dumb.  And they are on the internet now.  God Save Our Souls.  They are on slashdot.  I have it on good authoritee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have it on good authoritee that you are a communist subversive with plans to infiltrate Ben &amp; Jerry 's and have it produce RED ice cream .
That is a matter of fact .
I have this on good authoritee.The difference is , there are too many stupid people that believe and repeat anything .
Even that .
Because that was and is true , because you are .
See , more believers .
There 's no stopping this .
Face it .
100 IQ means a whole lotta dumb .
And they are on the internet now .
God Save Our Souls .
They are on slashdot .
I have it on good authoritee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have it on good authoritee that you are a communist subversive with plans to infiltrate Ben &amp; Jerry's and have it produce RED ice cream.
That is a matter of fact.
I have this on good authoritee.The difference is, there are too many stupid people that believe and repeat anything.
Even that.
Because that was and is true, because you are.
See, more believers.
There's no stopping this.
Face it.
100 IQ means a whole lotta dumb.
And they are on the internet now.
God Save Our Souls.
They are on slashdot.
I have it on good authoritee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259732</id>
	<title>What a piece of work</title>
	<author>FrankPoole</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy drags journalism through the mud, celebrates it like a pig rooting in his own feces, and then has the nerve to blame the media for blowing everything out of proportion and now is trying to claim his 15 minutes of fame like he's a GD Survivor villain. What a jerk.

Oh, and by the way, XPNet's Windows 7 data is flat-out wrong and anyone who knows anything about Windows and memory will tell you the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy drags journalism through the mud , celebrates it like a pig rooting in his own feces , and then has the nerve to blame the media for blowing everything out of proportion and now is trying to claim his 15 minutes of fame like he 's a GD Survivor villain .
What a jerk .
Oh , and by the way , XPNet 's Windows 7 data is flat-out wrong and anyone who knows anything about Windows and memory will tell you the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy drags journalism through the mud, celebrates it like a pig rooting in his own feces, and then has the nerve to blame the media for blowing everything out of proportion and now is trying to claim his 15 minutes of fame like he's a GD Survivor villain.
What a jerk.
Oh, and by the way, XPNet's Windows 7 data is flat-out wrong and anyone who knows anything about Windows and memory will tell you the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1265126940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is -- why should we trust *this* column from him, when he's been caught lying in the past?  "This time it's the truth, really!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is -- why should we trust * this * column from him , when he 's been caught lying in the past ?
" This time it 's the truth , really !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is -- why should we trust *this* column from him, when he's been caught lying in the past?
"This time it's the truth, really!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261314</id>
	<title>Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you should sell Slashdot posting evaluations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you should sell Slashdot posting evaluations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you should sell Slashdot posting evaluations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31270458</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>Estragib</author>
	<datestamp>1267100340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, he certainly suffers from an inflated ego.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I am Randall C. Kennedy, former internet "shock jock" blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title "Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition."</p></div><p>Most reviled person? The most significant thing I can tell about him is he's your average paid pen who'll write anything and everything for a steady income stream, barely worth mentioning, let alone reviling. Pity maybe, then swiftly forget.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he certainly suffers from an inflated ego.I am Randall C. Kennedy , former internet " shock jock " blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title " Most Reviled Person on the Internet , 2010 Edition .
" Most reviled person ?
The most significant thing I can tell about him is he 's your average paid pen who 'll write anything and everything for a steady income stream , barely worth mentioning , let alone reviling .
Pity maybe , then swiftly forget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he certainly suffers from an inflated ego.I am Randall C. Kennedy, former internet "shock jock" blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title "Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition.
"Most reviled person?
The most significant thing I can tell about him is he's your average paid pen who'll write anything and everything for a steady income stream, barely worth mentioning, let alone reviling.
Pity maybe, then swiftly forget.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</id>
	<title>Not going to read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would I give this asshole yet another page view?  What could the article possibly say that would make me think he's not a lying asshole?  I think this is one case where everyone shouldn't RTFA.

Oh, wait.  I'm new here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I give this asshole yet another page view ?
What could the article possibly say that would make me think he 's not a lying asshole ?
I think this is one case where everyone should n't RTFA .
Oh , wait .
I 'm new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I give this asshole yet another page view?
What could the article possibly say that would make me think he's not a lying asshole?
I think this is one case where everyone shouldn't RTFA.
Oh, wait.
I'm new here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259434</id>
	<title>Vista hatred was role-playing, flame-fanning</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1265127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I realized that I was now regularly espousing opinions and viewpoints that had almost nothing to do with what I truly believed. Rather, they were simply extensions of the RCK persona. I became the "Microsoft basher" when, at heart, I held the company in the highest regard. I became the "Vista basher" and the "Windows 7 basher" when, in truth, I used both every day and found them to be excellent products (yes, even Vista). "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I realized that I was now regularly espousing opinions and viewpoints that had almost nothing to do with what I truly believed .
Rather , they were simply extensions of the RCK persona .
I became the " Microsoft basher " when , at heart , I held the company in the highest regard .
I became the " Vista basher " and the " Windows 7 basher " when , in truth , I used both every day and found them to be excellent products ( yes , even Vista ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I realized that I was now regularly espousing opinions and viewpoints that had almost nothing to do with what I truly believed.
Rather, they were simply extensions of the RCK persona.
I became the "Microsoft basher" when, at heart, I held the company in the highest regard.
I became the "Vista basher" and the "Windows 7 basher" when, in truth, I used both every day and found them to be excellent products (yes, even Vista).
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31325510</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should we trust *any* column from anyone?  I read this one with the same skepticism that accompanies the reading of anything on the internet (or off the internet, for that matter).  It came across as something of an Aesop's fable to me - the identity and truthfulness of the particulars highly irrelevant, but the general 'lesson' is there, and might be useful in discouraging more people from doing what he did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should we trust * any * column from anyone ?
I read this one with the same skepticism that accompanies the reading of anything on the internet ( or off the internet , for that matter ) .
It came across as something of an Aesop 's fable to me - the identity and truthfulness of the particulars highly irrelevant , but the general 'lesson ' is there , and might be useful in discouraging more people from doing what he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should we trust *any* column from anyone?
I read this one with the same skepticism that accompanies the reading of anything on the internet (or off the internet, for that matter).
It came across as something of an Aesop's fable to me - the identity and truthfulness of the particulars highly irrelevant, but the general 'lesson' is there, and might be useful in discouraging more people from doing what he did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224</id>
	<title>Where's the "downfall" part?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the 96th paragraph about how "Major IT firm X comes knocking at my door", I realized this guy is your usual narcissistic fuck and stopped reading.  The choice of phrases like "comes knocking at my door" tells me everything about this guy: he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.</p><p>Seriously.  I did not need a thousand word sub-essay on Dvorak, Windows NT and NetWare.  What a fucking retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the 96th paragraph about how " Major IT firm X comes knocking at my door " , I realized this guy is your usual narcissistic fuck and stopped reading .
The choice of phrases like " comes knocking at my door " tells me everything about this guy : he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.Seriously .
I did not need a thousand word sub-essay on Dvorak , Windows NT and NetWare .
What a fucking retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the 96th paragraph about how "Major IT firm X comes knocking at my door", I realized this guy is your usual narcissistic fuck and stopped reading.
The choice of phrases like "comes knocking at my door" tells me everything about this guy: he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.Seriously.
I did not need a thousand word sub-essay on Dvorak, Windows NT and NetWare.
What a fucking retard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262756</id>
	<title>Screw him</title>
	<author>xaoslaad</author>
	<datestamp>1265140620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I read the article, and what I get from it is:
<br> <br>
1.) He knew what he was doing was scummy.<br>
2.) He continued to do it anyway.<br>
3.) It ruined his reputation.<br>
4.) He wished he hadn't done it.<br>
5.) Instead of eating shit for doing something stupid, he whips up a new name and used it to be 'reputable'; except he is not reputable. And he instead further proved how disreputable he is.
<br> <br>
I'm not familiar with him, his blog, or much anything else to do with this story, but this is what you get when you behave poorly. So take your smug ass and your piles of cash, fuck off, and go away.
<br> <br>
No one trusts you anymore, nor should they.
<br> <br>
You rate right up there with every loser CEO who thinks he can do wtf he wants because he has piles of money and need not regard anyone around him.
<br> <br>
Bastard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I read the article , and what I get from it is : 1 .
) He knew what he was doing was scummy .
2. ) He continued to do it anyway .
3. ) It ruined his reputation .
4. ) He wished he had n't done it .
5. ) Instead of eating shit for doing something stupid , he whips up a new name and used it to be 'reputable ' ; except he is not reputable .
And he instead further proved how disreputable he is .
I 'm not familiar with him , his blog , or much anything else to do with this story , but this is what you get when you behave poorly .
So take your smug ass and your piles of cash , fuck off , and go away .
No one trusts you anymore , nor should they .
You rate right up there with every loser CEO who thinks he can do wtf he wants because he has piles of money and need not regard anyone around him .
Bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I read the article, and what I get from it is:
 
1.
) He knew what he was doing was scummy.
2.) He continued to do it anyway.
3.) It ruined his reputation.
4.) He wished he hadn't done it.
5.) Instead of eating shit for doing something stupid, he whips up a new name and used it to be 'reputable'; except he is not reputable.
And he instead further proved how disreputable he is.
I'm not familiar with him, his blog, or much anything else to do with this story, but this is what you get when you behave poorly.
So take your smug ass and your piles of cash, fuck off, and go away.
No one trusts you anymore, nor should they.
You rate right up there with every loser CEO who thinks he can do wtf he wants because he has piles of money and need not regard anyone around him.
Bastard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261076</id>
	<title>Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comments demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 32bit v 64bit memory management.  Your high uid strongly hints (though does not confirm) that you may still be in high school Still, this lack of knowledge before posting is not excusable. Go do a bit of research, come back, and correct your post - that is your homework for tonight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comments demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 32bit v 64bit memory management .
Your high uid strongly hints ( though does not confirm ) that you may still be in high school Still , this lack of knowledge before posting is not excusable .
Go do a bit of research , come back , and correct your post - that is your homework for tonight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comments demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of 32bit v 64bit memory management.
Your high uid strongly hints (though does not confirm) that you may still be in high school Still, this lack of knowledge before posting is not excusable.
Go do a bit of research, come back, and correct your post - that is your homework for tonight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259806</id>
	<title>danville</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Danville is full of pricks with too much money that think they are better than everyone. Thanks for reinforcing this stigma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Danville is full of pricks with too much money that think they are better than everyone .
Thanks for reinforcing this stigma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Danville is full of pricks with too much money that think they are better than everyone.
Thanks for reinforcing this stigma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184</id>
	<title>His definition of "shock jock"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His definition of internet "shock jock" appears to be closer to my definition of "unethical sack of shit," but why quibble over semantics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His definition of internet " shock jock " appears to be closer to my definition of " unethical sack of shit , " but why quibble over semantics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His definition of internet "shock jock" appears to be closer to my definition of "unethical sack of shit," but why quibble over semantics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259540</id>
	<title>Journalists report shock</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1265127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Journalists report shock not stories. They have always been willing to bend the truth to get more readers.</p><p>The wise man will always judge for himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalists report shock not stories .
They have always been willing to bend the truth to get more readers.The wise man will always judge for himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalists report shock not stories.
They have always been willing to bend the truth to get more readers.The wise man will always judge for himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262780</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the "downfall" part?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...The choice of phrases like "comes knocking at my door" tells me everything about this guy: he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.</p></div><p>Boy, every now and then someone on Slashdot brings teh awesome. Hilarious!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...The choice of phrases like " comes knocking at my door " tells me everything about this guy : he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.Boy , every now and then someone on Slashdot brings teh awesome .
Hilarious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The choice of phrases like "comes knocking at my door" tells me everything about this guy: he wants to clone himself so he can finally fuck someone worthy of his love.Boy, every now and then someone on Slashdot brings teh awesome.
Hilarious!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260302</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>Control Group</author>
	<datestamp>1265130660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear internet: YHBT.</p><p>And what's the number one rule for dealing with trolls? Don't feed them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear internet : YHBT.And what 's the number one rule for dealing with trolls ?
Do n't feed them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear internet: YHBT.And what's the number one rule for dealing with trolls?
Don't feed them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260114</id>
	<title>tl;dr</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1265129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I did skim it, and it looks like the relevant pieces start 2 paragraphs prior to the "A Slippery Slope" section, halfway into the novella.  At least they didn't paginate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I did skim it , and it looks like the relevant pieces start 2 paragraphs prior to the " A Slippery Slope " section , halfway into the novella .
At least they did n't paginate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I did skim it, and it looks like the relevant pieces start 2 paragraphs prior to the "A Slippery Slope" section, halfway into the novella.
At least they didn't paginate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259466</id>
	<title>Here I'll help</title>
	<author>19thNervousBreakdown</author>
	<datestamp>1265127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After all, it&rsquo;s not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone&rsquo;s credit card information.</p></div><p>"Look guys it wasn't so bad, I was just foolin, no big deal!"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.</p></div><p>"I'm the victim here, but I'm still a manly man, look at my <em>sacrifice</em>, I'm jumping on the grenade here! (as I throw everyone close at hand under the bus)"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And in the end, I failed miserably.</p></div><p>"Please feel sorry for me now that I've abused your trust for years and years."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It was a dumb move, born of frustration at feeling painted into a corner of my own making. I should have just walked away earlier &ndash; it&rsquo;s just a blog in the end &ndash; but I lingered too long on the edge of the razor, and eventually it cut the heart out of everything I had tried to accomplish.</p></div><p>Wait is he trying to say that he almost got away with it, man he wishes he got away with it?</p><p>Fuck this asshole forever. As if what he's already done isn't enough, he tells his life story like anyone gives a shit. "Ohhh look how much money I made I am so awesome and knowledgable no wait feel sorry for me I'm just a man&mdash;a very <em>manly</em> man&mdash;protecting his family. But seriously, I'm rich and super smart, oh by the way buy my product you can trust me. I promise I won't create any more personas to review my own product and tell you how great it is."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it    s not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone    s credit card information .
" Look guys it was n't so bad , I was just foolin , no big deal !
" I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me .
" I 'm the victim here , but I 'm still a manly man , look at my sacrifice , I 'm jumping on the grenade here !
( as I throw everyone close at hand under the bus ) " And in the end , I failed miserably .
" Please feel sorry for me now that I 've abused your trust for years and years .
" It was a dumb move , born of frustration at feeling painted into a corner of my own making .
I should have just walked away earlier    it    s just a blog in the end    but I lingered too long on the edge of the razor , and eventually it cut the heart out of everything I had tried to accomplish.Wait is he trying to say that he almost got away with it , man he wishes he got away with it ? Fuck this asshole forever .
As if what he 's already done is n't enough , he tells his life story like anyone gives a shit .
" Ohhh look how much money I made I am so awesome and knowledgable no wait feel sorry for me I 'm just a man    a very manly man    protecting his family .
But seriously , I 'm rich and super smart , oh by the way buy my product you can trust me .
I promise I wo n't create any more personas to review my own product and tell you how great it is .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it’s not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone’s credit card information.
"Look guys it wasn't so bad, I was just foolin, no big deal!
"I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.
"I'm the victim here, but I'm still a manly man, look at my sacrifice, I'm jumping on the grenade here!
(as I throw everyone close at hand under the bus)"And in the end, I failed miserably.
"Please feel sorry for me now that I've abused your trust for years and years.
"It was a dumb move, born of frustration at feeling painted into a corner of my own making.
I should have just walked away earlier – it’s just a blog in the end – but I lingered too long on the edge of the razor, and eventually it cut the heart out of everything I had tried to accomplish.Wait is he trying to say that he almost got away with it, man he wishes he got away with it?Fuck this asshole forever.
As if what he's already done isn't enough, he tells his life story like anyone gives a shit.
"Ohhh look how much money I made I am so awesome and knowledgable no wait feel sorry for me I'm just a man—a very manly man—protecting his family.
But seriously, I'm rich and super smart, oh by the way buy my product you can trust me.
I promise I won't create any more personas to review my own product and tell you how great it is.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259344</id>
	<title>Meanwhile...</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1265126520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robert Enderle still gets playtime on NPR.</p><p>Maybe it's better to just be an asshole than to be an asshole and try to hide behind a nom de plume.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robert Enderle still gets playtime on NPR.Maybe it 's better to just be an asshole than to be an asshole and try to hide behind a nom de plume.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robert Enderle still gets playtime on NPR.Maybe it's better to just be an asshole than to be an asshole and try to hide behind a nom de plume.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259658</id>
	<title>Re:I was the first slashdot reader</title>
	<author>1\_brown\_mouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First!</p><p>Back in your cave troll.</p><p>ALL the industry publications are biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpieces.  They cannot divorce themselves from the industry they cover and the ads that pay their salaries.  Playing it straight and true does not PAY.</p><p>Only Consumers Reports maintains its integrity over time and it refuses any advertising.</p><p>An Unnamed source told me this.  Also, Al Queda has yellow cake uranium from Nigeria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First ! Back in your cave troll.ALL the industry publications are biased , paid up , propagandist , political mouthpieces .
They can not divorce themselves from the industry they cover and the ads that pay their salaries .
Playing it straight and true does not PAY.Only Consumers Reports maintains its integrity over time and it refuses any advertising.An Unnamed source told me this .
Also , Al Queda has yellow cake uranium from Nigeria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First!Back in your cave troll.ALL the industry publications are biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpieces.
They cannot divorce themselves from the industry they cover and the ads that pay their salaries.
Playing it straight and true does not PAY.Only Consumers Reports maintains its integrity over time and it refuses any advertising.An Unnamed source told me this.
Also, Al Queda has yellow cake uranium from Nigeria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261234</id>
	<title>Time to move on...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265134500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think some people are being a bit harsh. Self important? Definitely. Made bad decisions? Definitely...</p><p>The guy came right out and admitted what he did, and people make mistakes. It's very difficult to understand a situation unless you have been in that person's shoes.</p><p>He's gotta deal with the fallout over what he did, professionally and in public - and IMO, that's enough.</p><p>I guarantee that there are worse assholes posting less credible information all over the place. The moral of the story is that if you buy into the hype machine and sell your credibility to increase your standing it WILL eventually bite you on the ass; and also - it's a good idea to be able to do your own testing if you're really interested in understanding any particular piece of technology, because when money and ego are involved, you can't except anything at face value 100\% of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some people are being a bit harsh .
Self important ?
Definitely. Made bad decisions ?
Definitely...The guy came right out and admitted what he did , and people make mistakes .
It 's very difficult to understand a situation unless you have been in that person 's shoes.He 's got ta deal with the fallout over what he did , professionally and in public - and IMO , that 's enough.I guarantee that there are worse assholes posting less credible information all over the place .
The moral of the story is that if you buy into the hype machine and sell your credibility to increase your standing it WILL eventually bite you on the ass ; and also - it 's a good idea to be able to do your own testing if you 're really interested in understanding any particular piece of technology , because when money and ego are involved , you ca n't except anything at face value 100 \ % of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some people are being a bit harsh.
Self important?
Definitely. Made bad decisions?
Definitely...The guy came right out and admitted what he did, and people make mistakes.
It's very difficult to understand a situation unless you have been in that person's shoes.He's gotta deal with the fallout over what he did, professionally and in public - and IMO, that's enough.I guarantee that there are worse assholes posting less credible information all over the place.
The moral of the story is that if you buy into the hype machine and sell your credibility to increase your standing it WILL eventually bite you on the ass; and also - it's a good idea to be able to do your own testing if you're really interested in understanding any particular piece of technology, because when money and ego are involved, you can't except anything at face value 100\% of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192</id>
	<title>Can you malloc(0x200000000) ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have my doubts 64-bit Windows or Linux allows one task more than 4.0Gig.  I haven't tried it but I doubt they allow a malloc() of more than 3.5Gig.


I can malloc() 8Gig on my 12 Gig machine under <a href="http://www.losethos.com/" title="losethos.com" rel="nofollow">LoseThos</a> [losethos.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my doubts 64-bit Windows or Linux allows one task more than 4.0Gig .
I have n't tried it but I doubt they allow a malloc ( ) of more than 3.5Gig .
I can malloc ( ) 8Gig on my 12 Gig machine under LoseThos [ losethos.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my doubts 64-bit Windows or Linux allows one task more than 4.0Gig.
I haven't tried it but I doubt they allow a malloc() of more than 3.5Gig.
I can malloc() 8Gig on my 12 Gig machine under LoseThos [losethos.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264068</id>
	<title>This is about the culture....</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265103180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We live in a culture where as long as you say "I'm a journalist/blogger/commentator" you are allowed to say anything no matter how false without suffering any consequences.  Sources you expect to have some level of truth to them are now equivalent to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  Lies are how money is made, so lies are what we get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We live in a culture where as long as you say " I 'm a journalist/blogger/commentator " you are allowed to say anything no matter how false without suffering any consequences .
Sources you expect to have some level of truth to them are now equivalent to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh .
Lies are how money is made , so lies are what we get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We live in a culture where as long as you say "I'm a journalist/blogger/commentator" you are allowed to say anything no matter how false without suffering any consequences.
Sources you expect to have some level of truth to them are now equivalent to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Lies are how money is made, so lies are what we get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259524</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the "downfall" part?</title>
	<author>Phoenixlol</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4,347 word.  I agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>4,347 word .
I agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4,347 word.
I agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260798</id>
	<title>Or "troll"</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1265132760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, maybe it's just me, but it sounded to me like an euphemism for "troll". I mean, that's what we used to call the people who posted something shocking or inflamatory, to get attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , maybe it 's just me , but it sounded to me like an euphemism for " troll " .
I mean , that 's what we used to call the people who posted something shocking or inflamatory , to get attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, maybe it's just me, but it sounded to me like an euphemism for "troll".
I mean, that's what we used to call the people who posted something shocking or inflamatory, to get attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260006</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1265129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For once this story isn't about windows. It's about some guy who flat out lied to get a few more page impressions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For once this story is n't about windows .
It 's about some guy who flat out lied to get a few more page impressions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For once this story isn't about windows.
It's about some guy who flat out lied to get a few more page impressions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264654</id>
	<title>Re:The downside of internet anonymity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear. And that douchebag is a consummate douchebag. Look at all the money he's made for doing nearly nothing at all, only having the right contacts. He's a multi-fucking-millionaire and he wants what - SYMPATHY? Douchebag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear .
And that douchebag is a consummate douchebag .
Look at all the money he 's made for doing nearly nothing at all , only having the right contacts .
He 's a multi-fucking-millionaire and he wants what - SYMPATHY ?
Douchebag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear.
And that douchebag is a consummate douchebag.
Look at all the money he's made for doing nearly nothing at all, only having the right contacts.
He's a multi-fucking-millionaire and he wants what - SYMPATHY?
Douchebag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260060</id>
	<title>Delusions of a Dickhead</title>
	<author>steve-o-yeah</author>
	<datestamp>1265129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy drives me nuts, I can only presume that this post was some last-ditch effort to salvage some credibility, but in his quest to restore said trust, he continues to bloviate. He refers to himself several times as an "Internet 'shock jock'" and (my favourite) "industry&rsquo;s most notorious internet &ldquo;shock jock&rdquo;. <br> <br>

Just like George Costanza couldn't pick his own nickname ("T-Bone"), <b>YOU cannot decide who the most "notorious shock jock" is</b>. Until I heard about your lying bullshit, I had never heard of you before.
<br> <br>
Cram it up your ass you self-important douche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy drives me nuts , I can only presume that this post was some last-ditch effort to salvage some credibility , but in his quest to restore said trust , he continues to bloviate .
He refers to himself several times as an " Internet 'shock jock ' " and ( my favourite ) " industry    s most notorious internet    shock jock    .
Just like George Costanza could n't pick his own nickname ( " T-Bone " ) , YOU can not decide who the most " notorious shock jock " is .
Until I heard about your lying bullshit , I had never heard of you before .
Cram it up your ass you self-important douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy drives me nuts, I can only presume that this post was some last-ditch effort to salvage some credibility, but in his quest to restore said trust, he continues to bloviate.
He refers to himself several times as an "Internet 'shock jock'" and (my favourite) "industry’s most notorious internet “shock jock”.
Just like George Costanza couldn't pick his own nickname ("T-Bone"), YOU cannot decide who the most "notorious shock jock" is.
Until I heard about your lying bullshit, I had never heard of you before.
Cram it up your ass you self-important douche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261532</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>MikeyToo</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!<br>[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]<br>Croupier: Your winnings, sir.<br>Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captain Renault : I 'm shocked , shocked to find that gambling is going on in here !
[ a croupier hands Renault a pile of money ] Croupier : Your winnings , sir.Captain Renault : [ sotto voce ] Oh , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]Croupier: Your winnings, sir.Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267564</id>
	<title>Confessions of kdawson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep down I'm a Microsoft lover at heart, but the persona THEY FORCED ME TO USE (that I made up years earlier) needs to know the answers. I'm just asking questions here, just putting it out there. With all the crazy spin in the media these days and the President of Microsoft with his 'bing' agenda that's meant to save us all, well I tell you, who is asking the questions? I'm just an ordinary blogger like you, who's sick and tired of getting no answers. I'm just saying Microsoft kills kittens and your RAM, they haven't denied it have they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep down I 'm a Microsoft lover at heart , but the persona THEY FORCED ME TO USE ( that I made up years earlier ) needs to know the answers .
I 'm just asking questions here , just putting it out there .
With all the crazy spin in the media these days and the President of Microsoft with his 'bing ' agenda that 's meant to save us all , well I tell you , who is asking the questions ?
I 'm just an ordinary blogger like you , who 's sick and tired of getting no answers .
I 'm just saying Microsoft kills kittens and your RAM , they have n't denied it have they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep down I'm a Microsoft lover at heart, but the persona THEY FORCED ME TO USE (that I made up years earlier) needs to know the answers.
I'm just asking questions here, just putting it out there.
With all the crazy spin in the media these days and the President of Microsoft with his 'bing' agenda that's meant to save us all, well I tell you, who is asking the questions?
I'm just an ordinary blogger like you, who's sick and tired of getting no answers.
I'm just saying Microsoft kills kittens and your RAM, they haven't denied it have they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260172</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1265129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I can tell you what the article is going to say. It's going to tell you that it's all somebody else's fault. And if anything was wrong, it's because InfoWorld approved of his immoral behavior, which somehow makes it not his fault anymore.<br>
<br>
Rough, guess, I'll RTFA now. But he is just that kind of guy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I can tell you what the article is going to say .
It 's going to tell you that it 's all somebody else 's fault .
And if anything was wrong , it 's because InfoWorld approved of his immoral behavior , which somehow makes it not his fault anymore .
Rough , guess , I 'll RTFA now .
But he is just that kind of guy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I can tell you what the article is going to say.
It's going to tell you that it's all somebody else's fault.
And if anything was wrong, it's because InfoWorld approved of his immoral behavior, which somehow makes it not his fault anymore.
Rough, guess, I'll RTFA now.
But he is just that kind of guy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264212</id>
	<title>Re:Is it any different than a Pen Name?</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265103840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.</p></div><p>Looking at the love poems posted at blogspot in response, I think you hit that one on the head.  Where are the "You sold out any values you may have had long before you started posting lies under a pseudonym for cash." responses?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the " Blogosphere " is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.Looking at the love poems posted at blogspot in response , I think you hit that one on the head .
Where are the " You sold out any values you may have had long before you started posting lies under a pseudonym for cash .
" responses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.Looking at the love poems posted at blogspot in response, I think you hit that one on the head.
Where are the "You sold out any values you may have had long before you started posting lies under a pseudonym for cash.
" responses?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259606</id>
	<title>Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ?</title>
	<author>ThaReetLad</author>
	<datestamp>1265127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure you can so long as you're a 64bit native app, and not just a 32bit app on a 64bit OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure you can so long as you 're a 64bit native app , and not just a 32bit app on a 64bit OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure you can so long as you're a 64bit native app, and not just a 32bit app on a 64bit OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260076</id>
	<title>Automated Blocks?</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1265129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I understand, the slashdot submission process could be modified to include an automatic filter for blacklisted sites. Couldn't news aggregator (such as Slashdot) ban Infoworld? While you are at it, block that website that posts biased game reviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand , the slashdot submission process could be modified to include an automatic filter for blacklisted sites .
Could n't news aggregator ( such as Slashdot ) ban Infoworld ?
While you are at it , block that website that posts biased game reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand, the slashdot submission process could be modified to include an automatic filter for blacklisted sites.
Couldn't news aggregator (such as Slashdot) ban Infoworld?
While you are at it, block that website that posts biased game reviews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262520</id>
	<title>Re:What a jackass</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA, it boils down to this:</p></div><p>The confession and semi-apology wouldn't exist if he had not been outed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA , it boils down to this : The confession and semi-apology would n't exist if he had not been outed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA, it boils down to this:The confession and semi-apology wouldn't exist if he had not been outed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262622</id>
	<title>Where's the punchline?</title>
	<author>chicago\_scott</author>
	<datestamp>1265139960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this article is a joke; it's the thing that would make this story interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this article is a joke ; it 's the thing that would make this story interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this article is a joke; it's the thing that would make this story interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261232</id>
	<title>Oh, I thought this article was something else</title>
	<author>R3coiler</author>
	<datestamp>1265134500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the headline, I thought it was an interview with the guy in the Goatse picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the headline , I thought it was an interview with the guy in the Goatse picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the headline, I thought it was an interview with the guy in the Goatse picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259778</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for. It actually is innocent in this."</p><p>Well no, last time I checked, that's what Digg was about. Slashdot was about selecting wortwhile articles, that are actually worth reading, and weren't just FUD/advertisments.</p><p>Slashdot specifically selects articles, it filters articles, and it's the quality of that selection and filtering that I am questioning.</p><p>People come to Slashdot because they do not expect to have to deal with the turd that Digg churns out. Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest, then they might as well just replace the front page with firehose and not bother wasting time having editors in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Frankly , that 's exactly what Slashdot is for .
It actually is innocent in this .
" Well no , last time I checked , that 's what Digg was about .
Slashdot was about selecting wortwhile articles , that are actually worth reading , and were n't just FUD/advertisments.Slashdot specifically selects articles , it filters articles , and it 's the quality of that selection and filtering that I am questioning.People come to Slashdot because they do not expect to have to deal with the turd that Digg churns out .
Otherwise , if there is no filtering , and as you say , it 's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest , then they might as well just replace the front page with firehose and not bother wasting time having editors in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for.
It actually is innocent in this.
"Well no, last time I checked, that's what Digg was about.
Slashdot was about selecting wortwhile articles, that are actually worth reading, and weren't just FUD/advertisments.Slashdot specifically selects articles, it filters articles, and it's the quality of that selection and filtering that I am questioning.People come to Slashdot because they do not expect to have to deal with the turd that Digg churns out.
Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest, then they might as well just replace the front page with firehose and not bother wasting time having editors in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</id>
	<title>Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece. I was modded as a troll, back then.</p></div><p>I'll bite.  I skimmed through your comments looking for this -1, Troll claim that you have made and was unable to find it.  According to Google (not an authoritative source) I can only find <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1543706&amp;cid=31082074" title="slashdot.org">one comment in which you name IDG</a> [slashdot.org] and it's not modded Troll, it's modded Offtopic.  Nor does it rest at -1, merely at 0.  There's an important difference between the two.  You may have had a legitimate point it just had no place on that article for Slashdot.  I suspect that if you had compiled a list of examples that would conclusively lead the reader to agree with you, you might have even gotten a +2 Interesting.  <br> <br>

I've noticed unfortunately that, when you do cite sources, it <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1545466&amp;cid=31095936" title="slashdot.org">appears as though you're trying to pound a square block into a round hole</a> [slashdot.org].  Be careful not to look for things to prove you're right but instead to read many things about the subject before concluding that there is evidence from reliable sources or maybe your viewpoint needs adjustment.  <br> <br>

I have several friends from India, they have never complained of the <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1492888&amp;cid=30590468" title="slashdot.org">media</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461700&amp;cid=30279916" title="slashdot.org">bashing</a> [slashdot.org] India.  I cannot say I've noticed this beyond jokes about outsourcing and telemarketing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but who should be the ones laughing in those situations?  Probably the people who are employed.  <br> <br>

On top of that, you throw out the sporadic <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1458674&amp;cid=30245438" title="slashdot.org">groundless conspiracy</a> [slashdot.org] which can hurt your message:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No popular Indian newspaper reported anything like that. I'm pretty sure that this news has been created by the manipulation wing of CIA and published by its media partners. Those filthy bastards don't like to be idle. Now that they've exhausted all the crap they can publish about China, they've turned towards India. Please don't believe them.</p></div><p>Listen, if you have a message to get out, that's fine.  But a short post with such large conspiracy claim is often outright dismissed.  <br> <br>

Your comments are often curt and therefore don't have a lot of content.  This results in <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=610413&amp;cid=24146661" title="slashdot.org">you lashing out at your reader</a> [slashdot.org] which violates the know-your-audience rule of writing and often brings <a href="https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1024707&amp;cid=25718197" title="slashdot.org">nothing new to the discussion</a> [slashdot.org].  <br> <br>

My biggest advice to you is to add more meat to your comments and don't get in little pissing matches with long back-and-forths between you and another poster.  People don't enjoy reading ping-pong matches.  Think out your argument or claim ahead of time and account for all viewpoints from the get-go.  That's my advice.  You rarely see me post more than one or two comments per article and it's not because I don't read the responses, it's because I come here to say something, I say it and then I'm done.  Anything I missed was an error on my part and I deserve the valid rebuttal.  <br> <br>

I know this post looks like a direct criticism or attack on you but it's not.  It's meant to be constructive criticism because you have some real gems in your posts but every so often get really careless or resort to name calling or make outrageous claims with no proof.  If someone had convinced me that this Randall C. Kennedy guy was a complete bullshitter months ago, I would have loved to have known ahead of time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to comment ( 4 or 5 months ago ) that IDG news is a biased , paid up , propagandist , political mouthpiece .
I was modded as a troll , back then.I 'll bite .
I skimmed through your comments looking for this -1 , Troll claim that you have made and was unable to find it .
According to Google ( not an authoritative source ) I can only find one comment in which you name IDG [ slashdot.org ] and it 's not modded Troll , it 's modded Offtopic .
Nor does it rest at -1 , merely at 0 .
There 's an important difference between the two .
You may have had a legitimate point it just had no place on that article for Slashdot .
I suspect that if you had compiled a list of examples that would conclusively lead the reader to agree with you , you might have even gotten a + 2 Interesting .
I 've noticed unfortunately that , when you do cite sources , it appears as though you 're trying to pound a square block into a round hole [ slashdot.org ] .
Be careful not to look for things to prove you 're right but instead to read many things about the subject before concluding that there is evidence from reliable sources or maybe your viewpoint needs adjustment .
I have several friends from India , they have never complained of the media [ slashdot.org ] bashing [ slashdot.org ] India .
I can not say I 've noticed this beyond jokes about outsourcing and telemarketing ... but who should be the ones laughing in those situations ?
Probably the people who are employed .
On top of that , you throw out the sporadic groundless conspiracy [ slashdot.org ] which can hurt your message : No popular Indian newspaper reported anything like that .
I 'm pretty sure that this news has been created by the manipulation wing of CIA and published by its media partners .
Those filthy bastards do n't like to be idle .
Now that they 've exhausted all the crap they can publish about China , they 've turned towards India .
Please do n't believe them.Listen , if you have a message to get out , that 's fine .
But a short post with such large conspiracy claim is often outright dismissed .
Your comments are often curt and therefore do n't have a lot of content .
This results in you lashing out at your reader [ slashdot.org ] which violates the know-your-audience rule of writing and often brings nothing new to the discussion [ slashdot.org ] .
My biggest advice to you is to add more meat to your comments and do n't get in little pissing matches with long back-and-forths between you and another poster .
People do n't enjoy reading ping-pong matches .
Think out your argument or claim ahead of time and account for all viewpoints from the get-go .
That 's my advice .
You rarely see me post more than one or two comments per article and it 's not because I do n't read the responses , it 's because I come here to say something , I say it and then I 'm done .
Anything I missed was an error on my part and I deserve the valid rebuttal .
I know this post looks like a direct criticism or attack on you but it 's not .
It 's meant to be constructive criticism because you have some real gems in your posts but every so often get really careless or resort to name calling or make outrageous claims with no proof .
If someone had convinced me that this Randall C. Kennedy guy was a complete bullshitter months ago , I would have loved to have known ahead of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece.
I was modded as a troll, back then.I'll bite.
I skimmed through your comments looking for this -1, Troll claim that you have made and was unable to find it.
According to Google (not an authoritative source) I can only find one comment in which you name IDG [slashdot.org] and it's not modded Troll, it's modded Offtopic.
Nor does it rest at -1, merely at 0.
There's an important difference between the two.
You may have had a legitimate point it just had no place on that article for Slashdot.
I suspect that if you had compiled a list of examples that would conclusively lead the reader to agree with you, you might have even gotten a +2 Interesting.
I've noticed unfortunately that, when you do cite sources, it appears as though you're trying to pound a square block into a round hole [slashdot.org].
Be careful not to look for things to prove you're right but instead to read many things about the subject before concluding that there is evidence from reliable sources or maybe your viewpoint needs adjustment.
I have several friends from India, they have never complained of the media [slashdot.org] bashing [slashdot.org] India.
I cannot say I've noticed this beyond jokes about outsourcing and telemarketing ... but who should be the ones laughing in those situations?
Probably the people who are employed.
On top of that, you throw out the sporadic groundless conspiracy [slashdot.org] which can hurt your message:No popular Indian newspaper reported anything like that.
I'm pretty sure that this news has been created by the manipulation wing of CIA and published by its media partners.
Those filthy bastards don't like to be idle.
Now that they've exhausted all the crap they can publish about China, they've turned towards India.
Please don't believe them.Listen, if you have a message to get out, that's fine.
But a short post with such large conspiracy claim is often outright dismissed.
Your comments are often curt and therefore don't have a lot of content.
This results in you lashing out at your reader [slashdot.org] which violates the know-your-audience rule of writing and often brings nothing new to the discussion [slashdot.org].
My biggest advice to you is to add more meat to your comments and don't get in little pissing matches with long back-and-forths between you and another poster.
People don't enjoy reading ping-pong matches.
Think out your argument or claim ahead of time and account for all viewpoints from the get-go.
That's my advice.
You rarely see me post more than one or two comments per article and it's not because I don't read the responses, it's because I come here to say something, I say it and then I'm done.
Anything I missed was an error on my part and I deserve the valid rebuttal.
I know this post looks like a direct criticism or attack on you but it's not.
It's meant to be constructive criticism because you have some real gems in your posts but every so often get really careless or resort to name calling or make outrageous claims with no proof.
If someone had convinced me that this Randall C. Kennedy guy was a complete bullshitter months ago, I would have loved to have known ahead of time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld."</p><p>Or, say, Slashdot, which got InfoWorld half those hits by regurgitating it's bullshit in the first place?</p><p>Come on Slashdot editors- you can't post that quote, almost as if you're pretending that you're somehow innocent of this. You may been unwitting pawns in the InfoWorld hits game certainly, but you posted a FUD article about Android fragmentation just a day after InfoWorld had been outed as guilty of this and untrustworthy and that suggests that perhaps you enjoy leeching hits off their FUD as much as they enjoy generating them. So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Slashdot articles else I wouldn't come here, but it's pretty obvious that some of them are inflammatory FUD (hell Slashdot posted the original article in question) and that others of them are Slashvertisments.</p><p>Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this, and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way. I suspect that the editors play the biggest role in this by you know, doing some actual editing and checking the authenticity of the article they're about to post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that 's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld .
" Or , say , Slashdot , which got InfoWorld half those hits by regurgitating it 's bullshit in the first place ? Come on Slashdot editors- you ca n't post that quote , almost as if you 're pretending that you 're somehow innocent of this .
You may been unwitting pawns in the InfoWorld hits game certainly , but you posted a FUD article about Android fragmentation just a day after InfoWorld had been outed as guilty of this and untrustworthy and that suggests that perhaps you enjoy leeching hits off their FUD as much as they enjoy generating them .
So why pretend that Slashdot too does n't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits ? Do n't get me wrong , I like a lot of Slashdot articles else I would n't come here , but it 's pretty obvious that some of them are inflammatory FUD ( hell Slashdot posted the original article in question ) and that others of them are Slashvertisments.Slashdot 's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this , and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way .
I suspect that the editors play the biggest role in this by you know , doing some actual editing and checking the authenticity of the article they 're about to post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Includes an inside look at the politics of IDG and why you can never trust an IT publication that's as obsessed with page views as InfoWorld.
"Or, say, Slashdot, which got InfoWorld half those hits by regurgitating it's bullshit in the first place?Come on Slashdot editors- you can't post that quote, almost as if you're pretending that you're somehow innocent of this.
You may been unwitting pawns in the InfoWorld hits game certainly, but you posted a FUD article about Android fragmentation just a day after InfoWorld had been outed as guilty of this and untrustworthy and that suggests that perhaps you enjoy leeching hits off their FUD as much as they enjoy generating them.
So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Slashdot articles else I wouldn't come here, but it's pretty obvious that some of them are inflammatory FUD (hell Slashdot posted the original article in question) and that others of them are Slashvertisments.Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this, and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way.
I suspect that the editors play the biggest role in this by you know, doing some actual editing and checking the authenticity of the article they're about to post.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259768</id>
	<title>He's got more name-drops than an Oscar speech</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy's rambling post reminds me of every last name-dropping, frat-boy, asshole I've ever worked with.  He drops more names, completely at random, than your stereotypical Hollywood Agent.  He must have had some really good editors throughout the years, because I can't imagine reading an entire book by this clown.  Maybe this is what passes for journalism in the perpetually retarded, and wrong, "IT Analyst" industry.</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy 's rambling post reminds me of every last name-dropping , frat-boy , asshole I 've ever worked with .
He drops more names , completely at random , than your stereotypical Hollywood Agent .
He must have had some really good editors throughout the years , because I ca n't imagine reading an entire book by this clown .
Maybe this is what passes for journalism in the perpetually retarded , and wrong , " IT Analyst " industry.SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy's rambling post reminds me of every last name-dropping, frat-boy, asshole I've ever worked with.
He drops more names, completely at random, than your stereotypical Hollywood Agent.
He must have had some really good editors throughout the years, because I can't imagine reading an entire book by this clown.
Maybe this is what passes for journalism in the perpetually retarded, and wrong, "IT Analyst" industry.SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570</id>
	<title>Is it any different than a Pen Name?</title>
	<author>1\_brown\_mouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ben Franklin filled his paper with tons of his own writing.</p><p>RCK got it backwards.  He should have written/blogged as another name.  That would have protected his "first love" in a better manner.</p><p>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Franklin filled his paper with tons of his own writing.RCK got it backwards .
He should have written/blogged as another name .
That would have protected his " first love " in a better manner.I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the " Blogosphere " is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Franklin filled his paper with tons of his own writing.RCK got it backwards.
He should have written/blogged as another name.
That would have protected his "first love" in a better manner.I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260350</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure there is, I think I've seen it before somewhere in the options, but whilst some editors are worse than others, there's no real consistency. Sometimes even the better editors post shite and every once in a while the shite editors post good stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure there is , I think I 've seen it before somewhere in the options , but whilst some editors are worse than others , there 's no real consistency .
Sometimes even the better editors post shite and every once in a while the shite editors post good stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure there is, I think I've seen it before somewhere in the options, but whilst some editors are worse than others, there's no real consistency.
Sometimes even the better editors post shite and every once in a while the shite editors post good stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262208</id>
	<title>I'd blame Darrel and Ron</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1265138220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...It was there that I cut my teeth on technologies like NetWare, LAN Manager and SCO UNIX.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Ah, so you can't blame the guy; he's been working for two of the biggest FUD factories of the past 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...It was there that I cut my teeth on technologies like NetWare , LAN Manager and SCO UNIX .
... " Ah , so you ca n't blame the guy ; he 's been working for two of the biggest FUD factories of the past 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...It was there that I cut my teeth on technologies like NetWare, LAN Manager and SCO UNIX.
..."Ah, so you can't blame the guy; he's been working for two of the biggest FUD factories of the past 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261150</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>illaqueate</author>
	<datestamp>1265134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little too convenient to explain away the incompetence in the article that led to his outing as the product of an online persona. I've run into quite a few people who talk the talk until they make a mistake so fundamental they lose all credibility. This guy reads like he's a computer enthusiast masquerading as a technology expert. It appears he stands by his "findings" in the article that outed him which suggests he has no expertise whatsoever. The guy is a phony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little too convenient to explain away the incompetence in the article that led to his outing as the product of an online persona .
I 've run into quite a few people who talk the talk until they make a mistake so fundamental they lose all credibility .
This guy reads like he 's a computer enthusiast masquerading as a technology expert .
It appears he stands by his " findings " in the article that outed him which suggests he has no expertise whatsoever .
The guy is a phony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little too convenient to explain away the incompetence in the article that led to his outing as the product of an online persona.
I've run into quite a few people who talk the talk until they make a mistake so fundamental they lose all credibility.
This guy reads like he's a computer enthusiast masquerading as a technology expert.
It appears he stands by his "findings" in the article that outed him which suggests he has no expertise whatsoever.
The guy is a phony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31276788</id>
	<title>Re:What a jackass</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1267088880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF is an asshat?  Just say 'asshole', or if you're feeling scholarly, 'malcontent.'  There's no need to invent odd words to call attention to yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is an asshat ?
Just say 'asshole ' , or if you 're feeling scholarly , 'malcontent .
' There 's no need to invent odd words to call attention to yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is an asshat?
Just say 'asshole', or if you're feeling scholarly, 'malcontent.
'  There's no need to invent odd words to call attention to yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259826</id>
	<title>Re:His definition of "shock jock"</title>
	<author>theghost</author>
	<datestamp>1265128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not an unique interpretation of the term. Ideally the "shock jock" is an entertaining unethical sack of shit, though the "entertaining" part seems far more variable than the latter.</p><p>FYI, to all you budding humorists out there: Shock humor only works if you're actually enlightening people - opening up their minds to new ideas. (See sig.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not an unique interpretation of the term .
Ideally the " shock jock " is an entertaining unethical sack of shit , though the " entertaining " part seems far more variable than the latter.FYI , to all you budding humorists out there : Shock humor only works if you 're actually enlightening people - opening up their minds to new ideas .
( See sig .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not an unique interpretation of the term.
Ideally the "shock jock" is an entertaining unethical sack of shit, though the "entertaining" part seems far more variable than the latter.FYI, to all you budding humorists out there: Shock humor only works if you're actually enlightening people - opening up their minds to new ideas.
(See sig.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260486</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the "downfall" part?</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1265131500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where's the "downfall" part?</p></div><p>You mean the part where Hitler starts yelling at his officers for listening to internet Shock Jocks and complaining about how much money he lost on this scandal? I bet it should be up in youtube by now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the " downfall " part ? You mean the part where Hitler starts yelling at his officers for listening to internet Shock Jocks and complaining about how much money he lost on this scandal ?
I bet it should be up in youtube by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the "downfall" part?You mean the part where Hitler starts yelling at his officers for listening to internet Shock Jocks and complaining about how much money he lost on this scandal?
I bet it should be up in youtube by now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259256</id>
	<title>Re:No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Spinster' seems like the wrong word.  Normally that word means 'old maid'.  Maybe you mean <em>spinmeister</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Spinster ' seems like the wrong word .
Normally that word means 'old maid' .
Maybe you mean spinmeister .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Spinster' seems like the wrong word.
Normally that word means 'old maid'.
Maybe you mean spinmeister.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261718</id>
	<title>Re:No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't get why you all have it in for this guy.  He publishes some performance data of which you are skeptical, and you call him a scam artist and who knows what else?  Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't have more than one online persona?  I myself have the one I use at my day job (software engineer), the one I use on Facebook, the one I use in my hobby as a DJ... the list goes on.  I'm sure each one of you is more than guilty of misrepresenting himself at one tie or another.  It's too bad no one takes you to task like you are this guy.</p><p>Just because the guy goes off and makes a mistake like this does not mean he has no integrity whatsoever, or that his data is necessarily suspect.  The fact that he is willing to come clean about what happened speaks more about his character than some of the posters on this forum, who act like jilted third-graders who had a toy taken away.</p><p>I also would say he has a pretty high amount of technical skill if he was able to write a piece of software now used as the primary performance-monitoring tool for one of the major investment banks.  If you are up to the challenge, why don't you write a competing tool, open-source it, get it into the hands of several hundred thousand users, and compile your own statistics.  Oh, and do it in your spare time, of which you all seem to have way too much.  Or, you could just quit whining about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get why you all have it in for this guy .
He publishes some performance data of which you are skeptical , and you call him a scam artist and who knows what else ?
Do you seriously mean to tell me you do n't have more than one online persona ?
I myself have the one I use at my day job ( software engineer ) , the one I use on Facebook , the one I use in my hobby as a DJ... the list goes on .
I 'm sure each one of you is more than guilty of misrepresenting himself at one tie or another .
It 's too bad no one takes you to task like you are this guy.Just because the guy goes off and makes a mistake like this does not mean he has no integrity whatsoever , or that his data is necessarily suspect .
The fact that he is willing to come clean about what happened speaks more about his character than some of the posters on this forum , who act like jilted third-graders who had a toy taken away.I also would say he has a pretty high amount of technical skill if he was able to write a piece of software now used as the primary performance-monitoring tool for one of the major investment banks .
If you are up to the challenge , why do n't you write a competing tool , open-source it , get it into the hands of several hundred thousand users , and compile your own statistics .
Oh , and do it in your spare time , of which you all seem to have way too much .
Or , you could just quit whining about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get why you all have it in for this guy.
He publishes some performance data of which you are skeptical, and you call him a scam artist and who knows what else?
Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't have more than one online persona?
I myself have the one I use at my day job (software engineer), the one I use on Facebook, the one I use in my hobby as a DJ... the list goes on.
I'm sure each one of you is more than guilty of misrepresenting himself at one tie or another.
It's too bad no one takes you to task like you are this guy.Just because the guy goes off and makes a mistake like this does not mean he has no integrity whatsoever, or that his data is necessarily suspect.
The fact that he is willing to come clean about what happened speaks more about his character than some of the posters on this forum, who act like jilted third-graders who had a toy taken away.I also would say he has a pretty high amount of technical skill if he was able to write a piece of software now used as the primary performance-monitoring tool for one of the major investment banks.
If you are up to the challenge, why don't you write a competing tool, open-source it, get it into the hands of several hundred thousand users, and compile your own statistics.
Oh, and do it in your spare time, of which you all seem to have way too much.
Or, you could just quit whining about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263124</id>
	<title>Re:what difference does it make. DATA MATTERS</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265142240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His data (or rather, lack of any that could actually support his claims) was thoroughly debunked in comments on both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. stories covering this whole thing so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His data ( or rather , lack of any that could actually support his claims ) was thoroughly debunked in comments on both / .
stories covering this whole thing so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His data (or rather, lack of any that could actually support his claims) was thoroughly debunked in comments on both /.
stories covering this whole thing so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259938</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>PsychicX</author>
	<datestamp>1265129040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm shocked, shocked to find out people are writing tech columns just for page views.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked , shocked to find out people are writing tech columns just for page views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked, shocked to find out people are writing tech columns just for page views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263678</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1265101320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed there is. See your account settings, more specifically the exclusion settings under the indexes. Thanks, by the way, for reminding me to filter out kdawson's stuff - that bullshit posting about the MS involvement in the Seattle bridge affair was the last straw for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed there is .
See your account settings , more specifically the exclusion settings under the indexes .
Thanks , by the way , for reminding me to filter out kdawson 's stuff - that bullshit posting about the MS involvement in the Seattle bridge affair was the last straw for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed there is.
See your account settings, more specifically the exclusion settings under the indexes.
Thanks, by the way, for reminding me to filter out kdawson's stuff - that bullshit posting about the MS involvement in the Seattle bridge affair was the last straw for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259628</id>
	<title>Brevity</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1265127840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TLDR</p><p>And even scanning the text nearly bored me to sleep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TLDRAnd even scanning the text nearly bored me to sleep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLDRAnd even scanning the text nearly bored me to sleep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259396</id>
	<title>Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ?</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265126760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course 64-bit Windows and Linux can malloc() more than 4GB. Why else compile an application for 64-bit? Even better, unlike LoseThos they can malloc all your free ram as if it was one contiguous block, because they actually support Virtual Memory.</p><p>LoseThos seems to trash any and all attempts at process separation made in modern CPUs and OSs. Any process run on the machine can crash the whole system, or even trash the system files, making it unbootable. It's just not practical for a desktop OS. It's ok if you only ever run your own code, but who <i>only</i> runs their own code? To have even posted to slashdot you must be running a modern web browser, which means <i>not your own code</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course 64-bit Windows and Linux can malloc ( ) more than 4GB .
Why else compile an application for 64-bit ?
Even better , unlike LoseThos they can malloc all your free ram as if it was one contiguous block , because they actually support Virtual Memory.LoseThos seems to trash any and all attempts at process separation made in modern CPUs and OSs .
Any process run on the machine can crash the whole system , or even trash the system files , making it unbootable .
It 's just not practical for a desktop OS .
It 's ok if you only ever run your own code , but who only runs their own code ?
To have even posted to slashdot you must be running a modern web browser , which means not your own code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course 64-bit Windows and Linux can malloc() more than 4GB.
Why else compile an application for 64-bit?
Even better, unlike LoseThos they can malloc all your free ram as if it was one contiguous block, because they actually support Virtual Memory.LoseThos seems to trash any and all attempts at process separation made in modern CPUs and OSs.
Any process run on the machine can crash the whole system, or even trash the system files, making it unbootable.
It's just not practical for a desktop OS.
It's ok if you only ever run your own code, but who only runs their own code?
To have even posted to slashdot you must be running a modern web browser, which means not your own code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267250</id>
	<title>Re:No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HE just called HIMSELF a scam artist and a whole bunch else. It's not an isolated case, he's been doing this for at least 15 YEARS. Nice troll, buddy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HE just called HIMSELF a scam artist and a whole bunch else .
It 's not an isolated case , he 's been doing this for at least 15 YEARS .
Nice troll , buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HE just called HIMSELF a scam artist and a whole bunch else.
It's not an isolated case, he's been doing this for at least 15 YEARS.
Nice troll, buddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263790</id>
	<title>Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--Summer Glau</p><p>P.S.  Don't forget to check out the reruns of <b>The Sarah Conner Chronicles</b> on FOX!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--Summer GlauP.S .
Do n't forget to check out the reruns of The Sarah Conner Chronicles on FOX !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Summer GlauP.S.
Don't forget to check out the reruns of The Sarah Conner Chronicles on FOX!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267066</id>
	<title>Re:His definition of "shock jock"</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265117820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>His definition of internet "shock jock" appears to be closer to my definition of "unethical sack of shit," but why quibble over semantics.</p></div></blockquote><p>

That <b>is</b> the definition of "Shock Jock". The difference is just marketing. Like when polish special forced botched a hostage rescue, the headline said "217 terrorists killed in daring raid"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His definition of internet " shock jock " appears to be closer to my definition of " unethical sack of shit , " but why quibble over semantics .
That is the definition of " Shock Jock " .
The difference is just marketing .
Like when polish special forced botched a hostage rescue , the headline said " 217 terrorists killed in daring raid "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His definition of internet "shock jock" appears to be closer to my definition of "unethical sack of shit," but why quibble over semantics.
That is the definition of "Shock Jock".
The difference is just marketing.
Like when polish special forced botched a hostage rescue, the headline said "217 terrorists killed in daring raid"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260864</id>
	<title>tl;dr</title>
	<author>Wee</author>
	<datestamp>1265133000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy's a self-absorbed asshole.
<br> <br>

There.  I just saved you 20 minutes of wading through his long winded e-wanking.
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy 's a self-absorbed asshole .
There. I just saved you 20 minutes of wading through his long winded e-wanking .
-B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy's a self-absorbed asshole.
There.  I just saved you 20 minutes of wading through his long winded e-wanking.
-B</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259340</id>
	<title>Re:The downside of internet anonymity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about anonymity, this is about a fraudster being slashdotted over and over while the echo-chamber cheers him on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about anonymity , this is about a fraudster being slashdotted over and over while the echo-chamber cheers him on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about anonymity, this is about a fraudster being slashdotted over and over while the echo-chamber cheers him on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260256</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, more often than not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers click on the link to the forum where they can post about it, not the actual article.  I'm assuming that's what you meant by click on the article, you don't actually believe that 80\% of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ actually RTFA do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , more often than not / .
readers click on the link to the forum where they can post about it , not the actual article .
I 'm assuming that 's what you meant by click on the article , you do n't actually believe that 80 \ % of ./ actually RTFA do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, more often than not /.
readers click on the link to the forum where they can post about it, not the actual article.
I'm assuming that's what you meant by click on the article, you don't actually believe that 80\% of ./ actually RTFA do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263448</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>dhall</author>
	<datestamp>1265143500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must not follow politics.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>This admission of guilt seemed more gloating than sincere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not follow politics .
: ) This admission of guilt seemed more gloating than sincere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not follow politics.
:)This admission of guilt seemed more gloating than sincere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259764</id>
	<title>This guy is still full of $hit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Balancing the two worlds had become almost impossible, and I longed to escape from the "shock jock" persona  <b>that had been created for me</b>...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that <b>had been created for me</b>.</p></div><p>Sounds to me like this guy still is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions. If he can't accept responsibility for what HE created and what HE did, how is he ever going to have any measure of integrity?</p><p>-Rick</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Balancing the two worlds had become almost impossible , and I longed to escape from the " shock jock " persona that had been created for me...I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.Sounds to me like this guy still is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions .
If he ca n't accept responsibility for what HE created and what HE did , how is he ever going to have any measure of integrity ? -Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Balancing the two worlds had become almost impossible, and I longed to escape from the "shock jock" persona  that had been created for me...I merely tried to shield what was important to me from the fallout of the world that had been created for me.Sounds to me like this guy still is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions.
If he can't accept responsibility for what HE created and what HE did, how is he ever going to have any measure of integrity?-Rick
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31270080</id>
	<title>The Biggest Problem...</title>
	<author>altern1ty</author>
	<datestamp>1267095420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... that I have with this is that he expects to write this long semi-apologetic diatribe and then hope that the only capital he ever had in his chosen field, the trust of his clients, would just come flowing back in to him from the faithful. Well, I hate to say it, but if I'm looking for a firm that makes recommendations based on data, and I'm supposed to make a judgment call based on the data and word of the analyst, I'm not going to turn to a company run by a fraudulent internet "shock jock." The only thing he had was his  ability to point to his years of expertise and say "See? I know what I'm talking about!", and he gave that away for what, page views for his crap blog on a foundering technology site? Not only was it a huge mistake, but it was probably the death knell in his career and his company. If it isn't, then there's no justice in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that I have with this is that he expects to write this long semi-apologetic diatribe and then hope that the only capital he ever had in his chosen field , the trust of his clients , would just come flowing back in to him from the faithful .
Well , I hate to say it , but if I 'm looking for a firm that makes recommendations based on data , and I 'm supposed to make a judgment call based on the data and word of the analyst , I 'm not going to turn to a company run by a fraudulent internet " shock jock .
" The only thing he had was his ability to point to his years of expertise and say " See ?
I know what I 'm talking about !
" , and he gave that away for what , page views for his crap blog on a foundering technology site ?
Not only was it a huge mistake , but it was probably the death knell in his career and his company .
If it is n't , then there 's no justice in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that I have with this is that he expects to write this long semi-apologetic diatribe and then hope that the only capital he ever had in his chosen field, the trust of his clients, would just come flowing back in to him from the faithful.
Well, I hate to say it, but if I'm looking for a firm that makes recommendations based on data, and I'm supposed to make a judgment call based on the data and word of the analyst, I'm not going to turn to a company run by a fraudulent internet "shock jock.
" The only thing he had was his  ability to point to his years of expertise and say "See?
I know what I'm talking about!
", and he gave that away for what, page views for his crap blog on a foundering technology site?
Not only was it a huge mistake, but it was probably the death knell in his career and his company.
If it isn't, then there's no justice in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259044</id>
	<title>I know that My IPAddress is a secret</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1265124900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am using an unidentifieabil computer with 25 fire walls and Norton on hte supersecret network and nobody especially an Italian can say who I am so take that Luigi!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am using an unidentifieabil computer with 25 fire walls and Norton on hte supersecret network and nobody especially an Italian can say who I am so take that Luigi ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am using an unidentifieabil computer with 25 fire walls and Norton on hte supersecret network and nobody especially an Italian can say who I am so take that Luigi!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261026</id>
	<title>Re:No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265133600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like he has a reasonably technical background. What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)? Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.</p></div><p>There's one point I keep raising and haven't seen an answer to.  Win7 will use the page file to swap out running applications in favor of cache/superfetch. I see it regularly when I don't use an app for a while but leave it running; or minimize it to the task bar -- and have confirmed it with perfmon.   So while technically it can be "explained" as a result of  SuperFetch and caching, that doesn't invalidate the point that Windows is using memory to the exclusion of applications.  Presumably it is trying to do this in a smart way, but there's no question that it's doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like he has a reasonably technical background .
What has he found that can not be explained by SuperFetch ( high memory usage ) and Native Command Queuing ( backlogged disk I/O queue ) ?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.There 's one point I keep raising and have n't seen an answer to .
Win7 will use the page file to swap out running applications in favor of cache/superfetch .
I see it regularly when I do n't use an app for a while but leave it running ; or minimize it to the task bar -- and have confirmed it with perfmon .
So while technically it can be " explained " as a result of SuperFetch and caching , that does n't invalidate the point that Windows is using memory to the exclusion of applications .
Presumably it is trying to do this in a smart way , but there 's no question that it 's doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like he has a reasonably technical background.
What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.There's one point I keep raising and haven't seen an answer to.
Win7 will use the page file to swap out running applications in favor of cache/superfetch.
I see it regularly when I don't use an app for a while but leave it running; or minimize it to the task bar -- and have confirmed it with perfmon.
So while technically it can be "explained" as a result of  SuperFetch and caching, that doesn't invalidate the point that Windows is using memory to the exclusion of applications.
Presumably it is trying to do this in a smart way, but there's no question that it's doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263196</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1265142480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>agreed. my response is "who cares." but then again, who cares about my response?</htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed .
my response is " who cares .
" but then again , who cares about my response ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed.
my response is "who cares.
" but then again, who cares about my response?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259290</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>neurovish</author>
	<datestamp>1265126220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"&ldquo;Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition.&rdquo;", "while the future may see my name relegated to the role of punch line for a crude party joke".  Sounds like this guy has a vastly overinflated sense of self-importance.  Or maybe I don't spend enough time on the internet to know who the Most Reviled Person was and will be doomed to laughing uncomfortably trying to blend in at parties when people start busting out the Randall Kennedy jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>"    Most Reviled Person on the Internet , 2010 Edition.    " , " while the future may see my name relegated to the role of punch line for a crude party joke " .
Sounds like this guy has a vastly overinflated sense of self-importance .
Or maybe I do n't spend enough time on the internet to know who the Most Reviled Person was and will be doomed to laughing uncomfortably trying to blend in at parties when people start busting out the Randall Kennedy jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"“Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition.”", "while the future may see my name relegated to the role of punch line for a crude party joke".
Sounds like this guy has a vastly overinflated sense of self-importance.
Or maybe I don't spend enough time on the internet to know who the Most Reviled Person was and will be doomed to laughing uncomfortably trying to blend in at parties when people start busting out the Randall Kennedy jokes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259164</id>
	<title>Somewhat ironic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that Slashdot posts a link to a write-up about overzealous claims regarding Windows.  Certainly CmdrTaco and crew would never stoop to the level of spewing unverified garbage for the sake of page hits...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that Slashdot posts a link to a write-up about overzealous claims regarding Windows .
Certainly CmdrTaco and crew would never stoop to the level of spewing unverified garbage for the sake of page hits.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Slashdot posts a link to a write-up about overzealous claims regarding Windows.
Certainly CmdrTaco and crew would never stoop to the level of spewing unverified garbage for the sake of page hits...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31266822</id>
	<title>Hypocrite, I'd wager</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1265116320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kennedy's blog post reads like someone who doesn't really feel the contrition he's publicly confessed.  I'd guess he's still flush with the personal success that was concurrent with his disingenuity, and really doesn't see the harm caused by his choices and actions.  This might be typical of all non-violent anti-social "criminals": ultimately they're narcissists and see their personal success as the only true test of what is right or wrong.  Do you suppose Ken Lay (of Enron) even today truly feels that his actions were bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kennedy 's blog post reads like someone who does n't really feel the contrition he 's publicly confessed .
I 'd guess he 's still flush with the personal success that was concurrent with his disingenuity , and really does n't see the harm caused by his choices and actions .
This might be typical of all non-violent anti-social " criminals " : ultimately they 're narcissists and see their personal success as the only true test of what is right or wrong .
Do you suppose Ken Lay ( of Enron ) even today truly feels that his actions were bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kennedy's blog post reads like someone who doesn't really feel the contrition he's publicly confessed.
I'd guess he's still flush with the personal success that was concurrent with his disingenuity, and really doesn't see the harm caused by his choices and actions.
This might be typical of all non-violent anti-social "criminals": ultimately they're narcissists and see their personal success as the only true test of what is right or wrong.
Do you suppose Ken Lay (of Enron) even today truly feels that his actions were bad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259912</id>
	<title>Controversy Sells: Personal Experience</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a blog where I wrote all sorts of articles about things from computing to history to literature. Things I personally liked and all that. Pretty tame, homely blog. 20 hits on a good month, but meh, who cares. It's not like I'm Tom Friedman. Then one day I wrote a post on scientology (basically, it's hypocritical to criticise it as a religion if at the same time you're okay with all the others).
<br>
<br>
Boom! 300 page views that month. A dozen comments. Flamewars and fans.
<br>
<br>
If I'd been earning money from that blog, you bet I'd have taken a hint and continued to write things about how Obama is a commie, Glenn Beck should head an armed invasion of those baby-eating godless socialists in Europe, minorities are shifty, oil companies are conspiring against hamsters, and gays are actively plotting against our way of life every time they go Satan-worshipping on moonlit nights. Real me wouldn't stand for any of those, but real me - the regular guy who lives and lets live - doesn't sell as well.
<br>
<br>
Fox and MSNBC are more attractive investments than middle-o'-the-road CNN. The New York Times is doing all it can to survive, while the Sun and the National Enquirer sell on like it's 1970. Trash sells. I blame the man, but I also pity him. Only human, and as LotR says, the hearts of men are easily corrupted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a blog where I wrote all sorts of articles about things from computing to history to literature .
Things I personally liked and all that .
Pretty tame , homely blog .
20 hits on a good month , but meh , who cares .
It 's not like I 'm Tom Friedman .
Then one day I wrote a post on scientology ( basically , it 's hypocritical to criticise it as a religion if at the same time you 're okay with all the others ) .
Boom ! 300 page views that month .
A dozen comments .
Flamewars and fans .
If I 'd been earning money from that blog , you bet I 'd have taken a hint and continued to write things about how Obama is a commie , Glenn Beck should head an armed invasion of those baby-eating godless socialists in Europe , minorities are shifty , oil companies are conspiring against hamsters , and gays are actively plotting against our way of life every time they go Satan-worshipping on moonlit nights .
Real me would n't stand for any of those , but real me - the regular guy who lives and lets live - does n't sell as well .
Fox and MSNBC are more attractive investments than middle-o'-the-road CNN .
The New York Times is doing all it can to survive , while the Sun and the National Enquirer sell on like it 's 1970 .
Trash sells .
I blame the man , but I also pity him .
Only human , and as LotR says , the hearts of men are easily corrupted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a blog where I wrote all sorts of articles about things from computing to history to literature.
Things I personally liked and all that.
Pretty tame, homely blog.
20 hits on a good month, but meh, who cares.
It's not like I'm Tom Friedman.
Then one day I wrote a post on scientology (basically, it's hypocritical to criticise it as a religion if at the same time you're okay with all the others).
Boom! 300 page views that month.
A dozen comments.
Flamewars and fans.
If I'd been earning money from that blog, you bet I'd have taken a hint and continued to write things about how Obama is a commie, Glenn Beck should head an armed invasion of those baby-eating godless socialists in Europe, minorities are shifty, oil companies are conspiring against hamsters, and gays are actively plotting against our way of life every time they go Satan-worshipping on moonlit nights.
Real me wouldn't stand for any of those, but real me - the regular guy who lives and lets live - doesn't sell as well.
Fox and MSNBC are more attractive investments than middle-o'-the-road CNN.
The New York Times is doing all it can to survive, while the Sun and the National Enquirer sell on like it's 1970.
Trash sells.
I blame the man, but I also pity him.
Only human, and as LotR says, the hearts of men are easily corrupted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261132</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't forget this line, it's the best one of all - emphasis added.<p><div class="quote"><p>After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings &ndash; which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data &ndash; the <b>internet became engulfed in controversy</b></p> </div><p>An over-inflated sense of self-importance, or a woeful ignorance of the scope of the interwebs. Then again, maybe we're just jealous because we haven't made a enough to make sure that "we never have to work again".  Yes, I'm sure that's it... disregard my post, it was just my envy speaking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't forget this line , it 's the best one of all - emphasis added.After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings    which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data    the internet became engulfed in controversy An over-inflated sense of self-importance , or a woeful ignorance of the scope of the interwebs .
Then again , maybe we 're just jealous because we have n't made a enough to make sure that " we never have to work again " .
Yes , I 'm sure that 's it... disregard my post , it was just my envy speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't forget this line, it's the best one of all - emphasis added.After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings – which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data – the internet became engulfed in controversy An over-inflated sense of self-importance, or a woeful ignorance of the scope of the interwebs.
Then again, maybe we're just jealous because we haven't made a enough to make sure that "we never have to work again".
Yes, I'm sure that's it... disregard my post, it was just my envy speaking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a way to filter out the shitty editors? I'd be satisfied with a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. free of kdawson tripe, but happier with a choice of editors from a list which I could filter out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way to filter out the shitty editors ?
I 'd be satisfied with a / .
free of kdawson tripe , but happier with a choice of editors from a list which I could filter out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way to filter out the shitty editors?
I'd be satisfied with a /.
free of kdawson tripe, but happier with a choice of editors from a list which I could filter out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261408</id>
	<title>Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1265135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you think about all the recent "CyberWar" related stories like, for example, <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/157205/US-Unable-To-Win-a-Cyber-War" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [slashdot.org]? Don't you think these are propaganda?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you think about all the recent " CyberWar " related stories like , for example , this one [ slashdot.org ] ?
Do n't you think these are propaganda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you think about all the recent "CyberWar" related stories like, for example, this one [slashdot.org]?
Don't you think these are propaganda?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260632</id>
	<title>if only he had a hockey stick graph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The slashdotters would immediately ignore his "mistakes" and hail him an expert....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The slashdotters would immediately ignore his " mistakes " and hail him an expert... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slashdotters would immediately ignore his "mistakes" and hail him an expert....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094</id>
	<title>I was the first slashdot reader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece. I was modded as a troll, back then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>to comment ( 4 or 5 months ago ) that IDG news is a biased , paid up , propagandist , political mouthpiece .
I was modded as a troll , back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to comment (4 or 5 months ago) that IDG news is a biased, paid up, propagandist, political mouthpiece.
I was modded as a troll, back then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259884</id>
	<title>Never heard of him until today?</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1265128800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judging from the content and length of his article I can see why, if I had run across anything he'd written in the past I'd stop reading it two paragraphs in.</p><p>Most importantly, *DONKDONK* Law &amp; Order, were you lying then? or lying now? I'm guessing both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging from the content and length of his article I can see why , if I had run across anything he 'd written in the past I 'd stop reading it two paragraphs in.Most importantly , * DONKDONK * Law &amp; Order , were you lying then ?
or lying now ?
I 'm guessing both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging from the content and length of his article I can see why, if I had run across anything he'd written in the past I'd stop reading it two paragraphs in.Most importantly, *DONKDONK* Law &amp; Order, were you lying then?
or lying now?
I'm guessing both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264074</id>
	<title>This guy is still lying to us.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265103240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He says:<br>&gt;Simply put, the level of vitriol expressed felt way out of proportion, and the claims of "egregious ethics violations" and "insufferable breach of trust" were simply over the top.  After all, it's not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone's credit card information.</p><p>This is a false equivalency.  He's saying that nothing less than stealing credit cards or nuclear terrorism can be an ethics violation or an insufferable breach of trust.  He's either lying to us (because he has to know this is a false equivalency) or he's a moron.</p><p>(As a minor, but still important point: In the blog post, he states flatly that he had named a client in breach of his contract with that client, and that he didn't take the name down until he was warned by the client.  Again, this shows him being a dope.)</p><p>He used IDG for years to gain street cred and advertising for his company, and he used false IDs to do it.  He lied to the press and the public, and he therefore lied to his customers.</p><p>From this blog posting, I take away one piece of information that I believe to be true: Anyone who hires this mook ever again is an imbecile who will be taken for a ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He says : &gt; Simply put , the level of vitriol expressed felt way out of proportion , and the claims of " egregious ethics violations " and " insufferable breach of trust " were simply over the top .
After all , it 's not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone 's credit card information.This is a false equivalency .
He 's saying that nothing less than stealing credit cards or nuclear terrorism can be an ethics violation or an insufferable breach of trust .
He 's either lying to us ( because he has to know this is a false equivalency ) or he 's a moron .
( As a minor , but still important point : In the blog post , he states flatly that he had named a client in breach of his contract with that client , and that he did n't take the name down until he was warned by the client .
Again , this shows him being a dope .
) He used IDG for years to gain street cred and advertising for his company , and he used false IDs to do it .
He lied to the press and the public , and he therefore lied to his customers.From this blog posting , I take away one piece of information that I believe to be true : Anyone who hires this mook ever again is an imbecile who will be taken for a ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He says:&gt;Simply put, the level of vitriol expressed felt way out of proportion, and the claims of "egregious ethics violations" and "insufferable breach of trust" were simply over the top.
After all, it's not as if I had trafficked in nuclear secrets or or stolen someone's credit card information.This is a false equivalency.
He's saying that nothing less than stealing credit cards or nuclear terrorism can be an ethics violation or an insufferable breach of trust.
He's either lying to us (because he has to know this is a false equivalency) or he's a moron.
(As a minor, but still important point: In the blog post, he states flatly that he had named a client in breach of his contract with that client, and that he didn't take the name down until he was warned by the client.
Again, this shows him being a dope.
)He used IDG for years to gain street cred and advertising for his company, and he used false IDs to do it.
He lied to the press and the public, and he therefore lied to his customers.From this blog posting, I take away one piece of information that I believe to be true: Anyone who hires this mook ever again is an imbecile who will be taken for a ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259198</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never seen a CV written in a format like that before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen a CV written in a format like that before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen a CV written in a format like that before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260034</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never understood why anyone 'trusts' any company that gives them something for free.  Their main goal is -always- to earn as much money as possible.  Most of the time, that means being ethical because if they aren't, -this- kind of things will happen and destroy them.  But some companies aren't that smart.  And the ones that are smarter get away with little lies constantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why anyone 'trusts ' any company that gives them something for free .
Their main goal is -always- to earn as much money as possible .
Most of the time , that means being ethical because if they are n't , -this- kind of things will happen and destroy them .
But some companies are n't that smart .
And the ones that are smarter get away with little lies constantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why anyone 'trusts' any company that gives them something for free.
Their main goal is -always- to earn as much money as possible.
Most of the time, that means being ethical because if they aren't, -this- kind of things will happen and destroy them.
But some companies aren't that smart.
And the ones that are smarter get away with little lies constantly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259568</id>
	<title>Bleah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, "the coming clean" doesn't feel very trustworthy, comming from him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , " the coming clean " does n't feel very trustworthy , comming from him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, "the coming clean" doesn't feel very trustworthy, comming from him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all fairness the editors, anti-MS FUD is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. equivalent of catnip. Can't blame them for catering to the audience when 80\% of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would happily click on an article whose headline was "Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ says random Catholic priest."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all fairness the editors , anti-MS FUD is the / .
equivalent of catnip .
Ca n't blame them for catering to the audience when 80 \ % of / .
would happily click on an article whose headline was " Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ says random Catholic priest .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all fairness the editors, anti-MS FUD is the /.
equivalent of catnip.
Can't blame them for catering to the audience when 80\% of /.
would happily click on an article whose headline was "Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ says random Catholic priest.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260210</id>
	<title>I, for one bow down to my Slashdot FUD overlords</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265130120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, I enjoy reading the FUD on Slashdot, mostly because I love watching it get lambasted by people that know what they're talking/writing about.  On primary news sites the masses stupidly either agree with the FUD or dismiss it for the wrong reasons, CNN is starting to seem like 4chan.  On Slashdot you get people that have worked with the subject matter since it was in its infancy, or have spent much of their careers working with it.  Please bring on the FUD and get it to the front page.  It needs to be exposed for the shite it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I enjoy reading the FUD on Slashdot , mostly because I love watching it get lambasted by people that know what they 're talking/writing about .
On primary news sites the masses stupidly either agree with the FUD or dismiss it for the wrong reasons , CNN is starting to seem like 4chan .
On Slashdot you get people that have worked with the subject matter since it was in its infancy , or have spent much of their careers working with it .
Please bring on the FUD and get it to the front page .
It needs to be exposed for the shite it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I enjoy reading the FUD on Slashdot, mostly because I love watching it get lambasted by people that know what they're talking/writing about.
On primary news sites the masses stupidly either agree with the FUD or dismiss it for the wrong reasons, CNN is starting to seem like 4chan.
On Slashdot you get people that have worked with the subject matter since it was in its infancy, or have spent much of their careers working with it.
Please bring on the FUD and get it to the front page.
It needs to be exposed for the shite it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260506</id>
	<title>Re:Is it any different than a Pen Name?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's a lot different. He was using his forum at InfoWorld to shill his site/company/product without disclosing his conflict of interest.

It would be like a politician criticizing healthcare reform in a column and then not disclosing that he was on the board of directors for a Big Pharma company.

Oh wait....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's a lot different .
He was using his forum at InfoWorld to shill his site/company/product without disclosing his conflict of interest .
It would be like a politician criticizing healthcare reform in a column and then not disclosing that he was on the board of directors for a Big Pharma company .
Oh wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's a lot different.
He was using his forum at InfoWorld to shill his site/company/product without disclosing his conflict of interest.
It would be like a politician criticizing healthcare reform in a column and then not disclosing that he was on the board of directors for a Big Pharma company.
Oh wait....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261882</id>
	<title>Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what about <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/05/1548226" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [slashdot.org]? Do you seriously think it is anything other than paranoid FUD? (what I mean is: if the story is really logical, then the U.S. would have banned Chinese products long ago.) I'm not alleging bias or insincerity on part of the Slashdot authors. I'm just thinking they're too prejudiced (like other people) to be capable of filtering FUD effectively at all times. The reason why I'm worried is that it is precisely stories like these that destroyed people's critical thinking before invasion of Iraq.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about this [ slashdot.org ] ?
Do you seriously think it is anything other than paranoid FUD ?
( what I mean is : if the story is really logical , then the U.S. would have banned Chinese products long ago .
) I 'm not alleging bias or insincerity on part of the Slashdot authors .
I 'm just thinking they 're too prejudiced ( like other people ) to be capable of filtering FUD effectively at all times .
The reason why I 'm worried is that it is precisely stories like these that destroyed people 's critical thinking before invasion of Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about this [slashdot.org]?
Do you seriously think it is anything other than paranoid FUD?
(what I mean is: if the story is really logical, then the U.S. would have banned Chinese products long ago.
) I'm not alleging bias or insincerity on part of the Slashdot authors.
I'm just thinking they're too prejudiced (like other people) to be capable of filtering FUD effectively at all times.
The reason why I'm worried is that it is precisely stories like these that destroyed people's critical thinking before invasion of Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259624</id>
	<title>Making things worse</title>
	<author>tommasz</author>
	<datestamp>1265127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PCs are increasingly complex and there are lots and lots of things that can go wrong with them. Users are desperate for explanations for why their particular machine doesn't seem to run as well as it used to or is supposed to. Snake oil salesman like this doofus make a living selling simple explanations to complex problems that seem logical but are often wrong. Sometimes not just wrong but maliciously wrong. Instead of helping they're just making things worse. And rags like InfoWorld are just as bad, overlooking conflicts of interest and technical correctness in their pathetic quest for pageviews. Don't give them the attention they so desperately crave otherwise you're just playing their game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PCs are increasingly complex and there are lots and lots of things that can go wrong with them .
Users are desperate for explanations for why their particular machine does n't seem to run as well as it used to or is supposed to .
Snake oil salesman like this doofus make a living selling simple explanations to complex problems that seem logical but are often wrong .
Sometimes not just wrong but maliciously wrong .
Instead of helping they 're just making things worse .
And rags like InfoWorld are just as bad , overlooking conflicts of interest and technical correctness in their pathetic quest for pageviews .
Do n't give them the attention they so desperately crave otherwise you 're just playing their game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PCs are increasingly complex and there are lots and lots of things that can go wrong with them.
Users are desperate for explanations for why their particular machine doesn't seem to run as well as it used to or is supposed to.
Snake oil salesman like this doofus make a living selling simple explanations to complex problems that seem logical but are often wrong.
Sometimes not just wrong but maliciously wrong.
Instead of helping they're just making things worse.
And rags like InfoWorld are just as bad, overlooking conflicts of interest and technical correctness in their pathetic quest for pageviews.
Don't give them the attention they so desperately crave otherwise you're just playing their game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261484</id>
	<title>Re:Here I'll help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously have so much more credibility, hiding behind your online persona and calling people names.  You really ought to take a Valium and chill out.</p><p>What on earth has this person done that is so heinous?  He quoted data from a website that it was publicly known that he himself owned.  Ok, he used a pen name, in order to hide a conflict of interest, which is certainly questionable, but in the end you act like it was the end of civilization as we know it.  From the sound of it, he didn't profit financially.</p><p>I think you're seriously jealous of this guy.  As someone who has been in the consulting business for a decade, I understand where he's coming from.  It's the thin end of the wedge, and before you know it, you've gone and made a mistake you regret.  I challenge you to prove you're so perfect that you deserve to stand in judgement of this guy.  Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you disprove his performance statistics, which, after all, are what started this whole furore?  If that's what has angered you so much, maybe it's hit a bit too close to home.  Are you a closet Microsoft developer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously have so much more credibility , hiding behind your online persona and calling people names .
You really ought to take a Valium and chill out.What on earth has this person done that is so heinous ?
He quoted data from a website that it was publicly known that he himself owned .
Ok , he used a pen name , in order to hide a conflict of interest , which is certainly questionable , but in the end you act like it was the end of civilization as we know it .
From the sound of it , he did n't profit financially.I think you 're seriously jealous of this guy .
As someone who has been in the consulting business for a decade , I understand where he 's coming from .
It 's the thin end of the wedge , and before you know it , you 've gone and made a mistake you regret .
I challenge you to prove you 're so perfect that you deserve to stand in judgement of this guy .
Oh , and while you 're at it , why do n't you disprove his performance statistics , which , after all , are what started this whole furore ?
If that 's what has angered you so much , maybe it 's hit a bit too close to home .
Are you a closet Microsoft developer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously have so much more credibility, hiding behind your online persona and calling people names.
You really ought to take a Valium and chill out.What on earth has this person done that is so heinous?
He quoted data from a website that it was publicly known that he himself owned.
Ok, he used a pen name, in order to hide a conflict of interest, which is certainly questionable, but in the end you act like it was the end of civilization as we know it.
From the sound of it, he didn't profit financially.I think you're seriously jealous of this guy.
As someone who has been in the consulting business for a decade, I understand where he's coming from.
It's the thin end of the wedge, and before you know it, you've gone and made a mistake you regret.
I challenge you to prove you're so perfect that you deserve to stand in judgement of this guy.
Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you disprove his performance statistics, which, after all, are what started this whole furore?
If that's what has angered you so much, maybe it's hit a bit too close to home.
Are you a closet Microsoft developer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259924</id>
	<title>Re:The downside of internet anonymity</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. People lie, cheat and are douchebags has nothing to do with anonymity but with being a lier, cheater and a douchebag.<br>Taking away would not be people who are douchebags, be less of a douchebag. The difference is that before we never knew how many douchebags there actually are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
People lie , cheat and are douchebags has nothing to do with anonymity but with being a lier , cheater and a douchebag.Taking away would not be people who are douchebags , be less of a douchebag .
The difference is that before we never knew how many douchebags there actually are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
People lie, cheat and are douchebags has nothing to do with anonymity but with being a lier, cheater and a douchebag.Taking away would not be people who are douchebags, be less of a douchebag.
The difference is that before we never knew how many douchebags there actually are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260430</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problem is the insistence that everything digital must be free. It is the people who refuse to pay for anything that cause this kind of crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem is the insistence that everything digital must be free .
It is the people who refuse to pay for anything that cause this kind of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem is the insistence that everything digital must be free.
It is the people who refuse to pay for anything that cause this kind of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056</id>
	<title>No Choice at This Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

It's a lengthy piece, you can probably skip the parts about Intel and Wall Street (although some of you may be convinced that becoming such a spinster/shill/whore/liar requires years of training).  But What I found <i>most</i> interesting:<p><div class="quote"><p>And implode it did. After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings &ndash; <b>which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data</b> &ndash; the internet became engulfed in controversy. As the furor grew, and as more and more media outlets questioned just who this Craig Barth fellow really was and what made DMS tick, the house of cards came crumbling down. The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was.</p></div><p>(Emphasis mine.)  It seems like he has a reasonably technical background.  What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)?  Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what next? For starters, neither the exo.performance.network or Devil Mountain Software, Inc., are going anywhere anytime soon.</p></div><p>Surely he must realize that open sourcing everything about exo.performance.network is the only thing he can do at this point.  I mean, no one's going to trust him again if he has any way to manipulate the data/results without subject to complete inspection.  The only option I see is to open source the software client and post the <i>raw</i> data alongside his own analysis.  Without that I'm not stupid enough to trust an adoption rate quoted from this guy let alone average disk I/O queue on Windows 7.  Without this kind of auditing, I'm sure those numbers will turn up to be just enough to make my eyes widen and my finger click his link.  I am saddened that people will probably continue to run his client without knowing this whole story of how they were manipulated by a particularly crafty scam artist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lengthy piece , you can probably skip the parts about Intel and Wall Street ( although some of you may be convinced that becoming such a spinster/shill/whore/liar requires years of training ) .
But What I found most interesting : And implode it did .
After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings    which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data    the internet became engulfed in controversy .
As the furor grew , and as more and more media outlets questioned just who this Craig Barth fellow really was and what made DMS tick , the house of cards came crumbling down .
The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy , and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was .
( Emphasis mine .
) It seems like he has a reasonably technical background .
What has he found that can not be explained by SuperFetch ( high memory usage ) and Native Command Queuing ( backlogged disk I/O queue ) ?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.So , what next ?
For starters , neither the exo.performance.network or Devil Mountain Software , Inc. , are going anywhere anytime soon.Surely he must realize that open sourcing everything about exo.performance.network is the only thing he can do at this point .
I mean , no one 's going to trust him again if he has any way to manipulate the data/results without subject to complete inspection .
The only option I see is to open source the software client and post the raw data alongside his own analysis .
Without that I 'm not stupid enough to trust an adoption rate quoted from this guy let alone average disk I/O queue on Windows 7 .
Without this kind of auditing , I 'm sure those numbers will turn up to be just enough to make my eyes widen and my finger click his link .
I am saddened that people will probably continue to run his client without knowing this whole story of how they were manipulated by a particularly crafty scam artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

It's a lengthy piece, you can probably skip the parts about Intel and Wall Street (although some of you may be convinced that becoming such a spinster/shill/whore/liar requires years of training).
But What I found most interesting:And implode it did.
After publishing a particularly alarming set of findings – which I still stand behind while continuing to evaluate new data – the internet became engulfed in controversy.
As the furor grew, and as more and more media outlets questioned just who this Craig Barth fellow really was and what made DMS tick, the house of cards came crumbling down.
The persona of Craig Barth was exposed as one Randall C. Kennedy, and the entire web of half-truths and misdirection was exposed as the ruse that it was.
(Emphasis mine.
)  It seems like he has a reasonably technical background.
What has he found that cannot be explained by SuperFetch (high memory usage) and Native Command Queuing (backlogged disk I/O queue)?
Those were the two big percentage differences and apparently explainable if not desirable for the average user.So, what next?
For starters, neither the exo.performance.network or Devil Mountain Software, Inc., are going anywhere anytime soon.Surely he must realize that open sourcing everything about exo.performance.network is the only thing he can do at this point.
I mean, no one's going to trust him again if he has any way to manipulate the data/results without subject to complete inspection.
The only option I see is to open source the software client and post the raw data alongside his own analysis.
Without that I'm not stupid enough to trust an adoption rate quoted from this guy let alone average disk I/O queue on Windows 7.
Without this kind of auditing, I'm sure those numbers will turn up to be just enough to make my eyes widen and my finger click his link.
I am saddened that people will probably continue to run his client without knowing this whole story of how they were manipulated by a particularly crafty scam artist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260032</id>
	<title>what difference does it make. DATA MATTERS</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1265129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so he was barking with randal c kennedy persona to sell the data he produced legitimately with his real, craig barth identity.</p><p>what the fuck does it matter in regard to data, whether he was putting out a second, fake persona to advertise it ? the data wont change with the nature of advertisement, its still data. if the data is solid, it means it is valid. if the data is supported by similar findings from other sources, then noone can question the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so he was barking with randal c kennedy persona to sell the data he produced legitimately with his real , craig barth identity.what the fuck does it matter in regard to data , whether he was putting out a second , fake persona to advertise it ?
the data wont change with the nature of advertisement , its still data .
if the data is solid , it means it is valid .
if the data is supported by similar findings from other sources , then noone can question the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so he was barking with randal c kennedy persona to sell the data he produced legitimately with his real, craig barth identity.what the fuck does it matter in regard to data, whether he was putting out a second, fake persona to advertise it ?
the data wont change with the nature of advertisement, its still data.
if the data is solid, it means it is valid.
if the data is supported by similar findings from other sources, then noone can question the data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31271224</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267108200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.

Wow.  Your brush was so broad, you tarred yourself in the process.  Nice.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the " Blogosphere " is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber .
Wow. Your brush was so broad , you tarred yourself in the process .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as confirmation that Blogging and the "Blogosphere" is an empty and thoughtless echo chamber.
Wow.  Your brush was so broad, you tarred yourself in the process.
Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136</id>
	<title>What a jackass</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1265129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA, it boils down to this:</p><p>A guy with a technical background discovered the rush of trolling a large audience.  The major difference between this and a large segment of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers is, he did it under a journalistic guise - which makes him an unethical asshat whereas the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. trolls are merely run-of-the-mill asshats.</p><p>So then he tried to have his cake and eat it too: he wanted to enjoy the respect of his peers in technical endeavors while still having his fun as an asshat blogger.  So, big surprise, it backfired and now he's lost the respect of his peers.</p><p>As for the Windows 7 RAM usage data - he may well have reported that in good faith, but it doesn't matter because of who he'd chosen to become.  (As much as he tries to sound like he was drawn into his situation, ultimately he chose to be what he was and is; this article really just shows that while he may be resigned to the consequences, he hasn't truly accepted responsibility.)  Maybe he really has reason to believe his findings, or maybe the desire to save face is coloring his view.  (He certainly wants some measure of justification; I guess it's easier to feel that it's all unfair if the story that gets you caught was a case where you were factually correct.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA , it boils down to this : A guy with a technical background discovered the rush of trolling a large audience .
The major difference between this and a large segment of / .
readers is , he did it under a journalistic guise - which makes him an unethical asshat whereas the / .
trolls are merely run-of-the-mill asshats.So then he tried to have his cake and eat it too : he wanted to enjoy the respect of his peers in technical endeavors while still having his fun as an asshat blogger .
So , big surprise , it backfired and now he 's lost the respect of his peers.As for the Windows 7 RAM usage data - he may well have reported that in good faith , but it does n't matter because of who he 'd chosen to become .
( As much as he tries to sound like he was drawn into his situation , ultimately he chose to be what he was and is ; this article really just shows that while he may be resigned to the consequences , he has n't truly accepted responsibility .
) Maybe he really has reason to believe his findings , or maybe the desire to save face is coloring his view .
( He certainly wants some measure of justification ; I guess it 's easier to feel that it 's all unfair if the story that gets you caught was a case where you were factually correct .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you strip away the self-important tone of TFA, it boils down to this:A guy with a technical background discovered the rush of trolling a large audience.
The major difference between this and a large segment of /.
readers is, he did it under a journalistic guise - which makes him an unethical asshat whereas the /.
trolls are merely run-of-the-mill asshats.So then he tried to have his cake and eat it too: he wanted to enjoy the respect of his peers in technical endeavors while still having his fun as an asshat blogger.
So, big surprise, it backfired and now he's lost the respect of his peers.As for the Windows 7 RAM usage data - he may well have reported that in good faith, but it doesn't matter because of who he'd chosen to become.
(As much as he tries to sound like he was drawn into his situation, ultimately he chose to be what he was and is; this article really just shows that while he may be resigned to the consequences, he hasn't truly accepted responsibility.
)  Maybe he really has reason to believe his findings, or maybe the desire to save face is coloring his view.
(He certainly wants some measure of justification; I guess it's easier to feel that it's all unfair if the story that gets you caught was a case where you were factually correct.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259516</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?</i>
</p><p>InfoWorld writes and generates news. Slashdot merely links to it and provides a discussion forum. Infoworld asks you to assume that it has credibility; Slashdot asks you to assume nothing except "this link might be interesting to technically-minded people."
</p><p>You're right that Slashdot <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;type=story&amp;sid=10/02/18/0429258" title="slashdot.org">linked to the original article</a> [slashdot.org] in this sorry mess.  Infoworld claimed its conclusions were correct.  Slashdot did not; it merely said, "Hey, look what Infoworld says" -- and then enabled a lengthy discussion of the merits and problems of the Infoworld article.  Much of that discussion questioned Infoworld's results. Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for.  It actually <b>is</b> innocent in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why pretend that Slashdot too does n't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits ?
InfoWorld writes and generates news .
Slashdot merely links to it and provides a discussion forum .
Infoworld asks you to assume that it has credibility ; Slashdot asks you to assume nothing except " this link might be interesting to technically-minded people .
" You 're right that Slashdot linked to the original article [ slashdot.org ] in this sorry mess .
Infoworld claimed its conclusions were correct .
Slashdot did not ; it merely said , " Hey , look what Infoworld says " -- and then enabled a lengthy discussion of the merits and problems of the Infoworld article .
Much of that discussion questioned Infoworld 's results .
Frankly , that 's exactly what Slashdot is for .
It actually is innocent in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So why pretend that Slashdot too doesn't use shock articles sometimes to try and increase hits?
InfoWorld writes and generates news.
Slashdot merely links to it and provides a discussion forum.
Infoworld asks you to assume that it has credibility; Slashdot asks you to assume nothing except "this link might be interesting to technically-minded people.
"
You're right that Slashdot linked to the original article [slashdot.org] in this sorry mess.
Infoworld claimed its conclusions were correct.
Slashdot did not; it merely said, "Hey, look what Infoworld says" -- and then enabled a lengthy discussion of the merits and problems of the Infoworld article.
Much of that discussion questioned Infoworld's results.
Frankly, that's exactly what Slashdot is for.
It actually is innocent in this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260990</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this, and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way.</i></p><p>Slashdot never had any credibility to lose. Editors are chosen based on some completely random factor I haven't yet determined (in kdawson's case, it was foaming-mouth hatred of Microsoft combined with willingness to spread lies, for example.) It's not like they're coming from the New York Times, or even journalism school for that matter.</p><p>The editors don't check crap. In an article I submitted and Slashdot published, they actually made my summary *less* clear by moving link text around. I can only assume they do that with most other articles as well.</p><p>The only credibility on this site is in the comments section, and in there you have to pick and choose who you believe is most credible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot 's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this , and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way.Slashdot never had any credibility to lose .
Editors are chosen based on some completely random factor I have n't yet determined ( in kdawson 's case , it was foaming-mouth hatred of Microsoft combined with willingness to spread lies , for example .
) It 's not like they 're coming from the New York Times , or even journalism school for that matter.The editors do n't check crap .
In an article I submitted and Slashdot published , they actually made my summary * less * clear by moving link text around .
I can only assume they do that with most other articles as well.The only credibility on this site is in the comments section , and in there you have to pick and choose who you believe is most credible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot's credibility absolutely has decreased over the years because of this, and so it may want to read the above quoted sentence and take some lessons from it itself to ensure it avoids ever heading the same way.Slashdot never had any credibility to lose.
Editors are chosen based on some completely random factor I haven't yet determined (in kdawson's case, it was foaming-mouth hatred of Microsoft combined with willingness to spread lies, for example.
) It's not like they're coming from the New York Times, or even journalism school for that matter.The editors don't check crap.
In an article I submitted and Slashdot published, they actually made my summary *less* clear by moving link text around.
I can only assume they do that with most other articles as well.The only credibility on this site is in the comments section, and in there you have to pick and choose who you believe is most credible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259260</id>
	<title>Re:The downside of internet anonymity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, you fucking faggot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the stupidest thing I 've ever heard , you fucking faggot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, you fucking faggot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261358</id>
	<title>Re:Can you malloc(0x200000000) ?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265135040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you can.  Well maybe.  I'm not positive about a single alloc request of that size, but Windows and FreeBSD will be happy to allocate more than 4 gigs to a single process via multiple allocs.  I can't recall ever preallocating that much, but I'd be surprised if it didn't work.</p><p>I've done so with both FreeBSD and Windows, and both will even go so far as to overcommit and allow the alloc to succeed even though they don't have 4 gigs of ram in the machine, just 64 bit kernels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you can .
Well maybe .
I 'm not positive about a single alloc request of that size , but Windows and FreeBSD will be happy to allocate more than 4 gigs to a single process via multiple allocs .
I ca n't recall ever preallocating that much , but I 'd be surprised if it did n't work.I 've done so with both FreeBSD and Windows , and both will even go so far as to overcommit and allow the alloc to succeed even though they do n't have 4 gigs of ram in the machine , just 64 bit kernels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you can.
Well maybe.
I'm not positive about a single alloc request of that size, but Windows and FreeBSD will be happy to allocate more than 4 gigs to a single process via multiple allocs.
I can't recall ever preallocating that much, but I'd be surprised if it didn't work.I've done so with both FreeBSD and Windows, and both will even go so far as to overcommit and allow the alloc to succeed even though they don't have 4 gigs of ram in the machine, just 64 bit kernels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030</id>
	<title>The downside of internet anonymity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That which gives us the freedom to speak freely and openly and to be more politically honest citizens also gives us the freedom to lie, cheat, and to be griefers and general douchebags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That which gives us the freedom to speak freely and openly and to be more politically honest citizens also gives us the freedom to lie , cheat , and to be griefers and general douchebags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That which gives us the freedom to speak freely and openly and to be more politically honest citizens also gives us the freedom to lie, cheat, and to be griefers and general douchebags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31268576</id>
	<title>Re:Some Friendly Advice to Make Slashdot Enjoyable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I'm only an AC &amp; have no mod points, let me just say that's one of the best damn posts I've ever seen.<br>Great advice, everybody should follow it.</p><p>But we all know it's not that easy; some people just can't resist using the AC name to PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 'm only an AC &amp; have no mod points , let me just say that 's one of the best damn posts I 've ever seen.Great advice , everybody should follow it.But we all know it 's not that easy ; some people just ca n't resist using the AC name to PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I'm only an AC &amp; have no mod points, let me just say that's one of the best damn posts I've ever seen.Great advice, everybody should follow it.But we all know it's not that easy; some people just can't resist using the AC name to PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260968</id>
	<title>Garbage</title>
	<author>Hy-teq</author>
	<datestamp>1265133420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a self-indulgent overly long piece of crap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a self-indulgent overly long piece of crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a self-indulgent overly long piece of crap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261262</id>
	<title>I call BS</title>
	<author>mr.dreadful</author>
	<datestamp>1265134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets compare:
<p>
Randall Kennedy writes for a trade publication that presents itself as an authority in their space. I've read several of his posts in the past and wasn't shocked by his outrageous attitude, but by the poor thinking and conclusions he presented. That's shocking all right, but not in a good way. I unsubscribed from Infoworld after realizing they cared more about their click through rate then the quality of their "journalism."
</p><p>
Howard Stern is, for arguments sake, the original shock jock. Expresses his personal opinion on a radio show that is clearly identified as an entertainment program, no more, no less. His opinion of dwarves is not going to affect someones purchasing decision.
</p><p>
Frankly, I lay the blame at the feet of InfoWorlds editor. Read the comments on any of Kennedy's articles and you realize that the editor must have clearly known the audience found Kennedy's opinion's suspect. Clearly the page views were more important to them then the quality of their offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets compare : Randall Kennedy writes for a trade publication that presents itself as an authority in their space .
I 've read several of his posts in the past and was n't shocked by his outrageous attitude , but by the poor thinking and conclusions he presented .
That 's shocking all right , but not in a good way .
I unsubscribed from Infoworld after realizing they cared more about their click through rate then the quality of their " journalism .
" Howard Stern is , for arguments sake , the original shock jock .
Expresses his personal opinion on a radio show that is clearly identified as an entertainment program , no more , no less .
His opinion of dwarves is not going to affect someones purchasing decision .
Frankly , I lay the blame at the feet of InfoWorlds editor .
Read the comments on any of Kennedy 's articles and you realize that the editor must have clearly known the audience found Kennedy 's opinion 's suspect .
Clearly the page views were more important to them then the quality of their offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets compare:

Randall Kennedy writes for a trade publication that presents itself as an authority in their space.
I've read several of his posts in the past and wasn't shocked by his outrageous attitude, but by the poor thinking and conclusions he presented.
That's shocking all right, but not in a good way.
I unsubscribed from Infoworld after realizing they cared more about their click through rate then the quality of their "journalism.
"

Howard Stern is, for arguments sake, the original shock jock.
Expresses his personal opinion on a radio show that is clearly identified as an entertainment program, no more, no less.
His opinion of dwarves is not going to affect someones purchasing decision.
Frankly, I lay the blame at the feet of InfoWorlds editor.
Read the comments on any of Kennedy's articles and you realize that the editor must have clearly known the audience found Kennedy's opinion's suspect.
Clearly the page views were more important to them then the quality of their offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31268576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31270458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31276788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31325510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1348202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31264654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31270458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31325510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31276788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31267250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31261408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31263790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31268576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1348202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31259524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31260486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1348202.31262780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
