<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_1445243</id>
	<title>Toyota's Engineering Process and the General Public</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267976220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Doofus writes <i>"The Washington Post has published in today's paper an article titled '<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/06/AR2010030602448\_pf.html">Why it's so hard for Toyota to find out what's wrong</a>' by Frank Ahrens on the Toyota situation and the difficulties of adequately conveying to Senators and Representatives &mdash; most of whom are non-technical &mdash; the debugging process.  Ahrens interviews Giorgio Rizzoni, an 'expert in failure analysis' at Ohio State, who describes the iterations of testing that NHTSA will likely inflict on the Toyota sample cars they have purchased, and then moves into the realm of software and systems verification: 'He explained that each vehicle contains "layers of computer code that may be added from one model year to next" that control nearly every system, from acceleration to braking to stability. Rizzoni said this software is rigorously tested, but he added: "It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."' Ahrens ends the piece with a quote from a 2009 LA Times interview with former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt about how user reports are often unreliable: 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong. The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.'"</i>
Toyota is currently planning <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&amp;sid=aqGZXXDs25zo">an event to challenge evidence</a> presented by professor David W. Gilbert that called into question Toyota's electronic throttle system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doofus writes " The Washington Post has published in today 's paper an article titled 'Why it 's so hard for Toyota to find out what 's wrong ' by Frank Ahrens on the Toyota situation and the difficulties of adequately conveying to Senators and Representatives    most of whom are non-technical    the debugging process .
Ahrens interviews Giorgio Rizzoni , an 'expert in failure analysis ' at Ohio State , who describes the iterations of testing that NHTSA will likely inflict on the Toyota sample cars they have purchased , and then moves into the realm of software and systems verification : 'He explained that each vehicle contains " layers of computer code that may be added from one model year to next " that control nearly every system , from acceleration to braking to stability .
Rizzoni said this software is rigorously tested , but he added : " It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
" ' Ahrens ends the piece with a quote from a 2009 LA Times interview with former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt about how user reports are often unreliable : 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake , they are just plain wrong .
The human motor system is not perfect , and it does n't always do what it is told .
' " Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence presented by professor David W. Gilbert that called into question Toyota 's electronic throttle system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doofus writes "The Washington Post has published in today's paper an article titled 'Why it's so hard for Toyota to find out what's wrong' by Frank Ahrens on the Toyota situation and the difficulties of adequately conveying to Senators and Representatives — most of whom are non-technical — the debugging process.
Ahrens interviews Giorgio Rizzoni, an 'expert in failure analysis' at Ohio State, who describes the iterations of testing that NHTSA will likely inflict on the Toyota sample cars they have purchased, and then moves into the realm of software and systems verification: 'He explained that each vehicle contains "layers of computer code that may be added from one model year to next" that control nearly every system, from acceleration to braking to stability.
Rizzoni said this software is rigorously tested, but he added: "It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"' Ahrens ends the piece with a quote from a 2009 LA Times interview with former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt about how user reports are often unreliable: 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong.
The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.
'"
Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence presented by professor David W. Gilbert that called into question Toyota's electronic throttle system.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395438</id>
	<title>How to fix this sticky problem</title>
	<author>gamecrusader</author>
	<datestamp>1267968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is one way that Toyota can fix this problem FULLY REFUND THEIR CUSTOMERS and start over from scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is one way that Toyota can fix this problem FULLY REFUND THEIR CUSTOMERS and start over from scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is one way that Toyota can fix this problem FULLY REFUND THEIR CUSTOMERS and start over from scratch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390804</id>
	<title>Re:V&amp;V</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't underestimate the complexity of these kinds of systems.  Rigorously testing them is actually incredibly difficult and expensive.  Yes, there are formalized methods that help, and I'd be shocked if something like a car's braking system didn't use them extensively.</p><p>How many spacecraft have been lost so far?  Consider that every part and system in them has been subjected to the most rigorous quality control systems in the world, with exactly the kinds of testing methodologies you referred to.  The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.</p><p>Even formal risk assessments only take into the account the risk factors they examine.  The problem isn't the things you think about - it is the thing that nobody thought of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't underestimate the complexity of these kinds of systems .
Rigorously testing them is actually incredibly difficult and expensive .
Yes , there are formalized methods that help , and I 'd be shocked if something like a car 's braking system did n't use them extensively.How many spacecraft have been lost so far ?
Consider that every part and system in them has been subjected to the most rigorous quality control systems in the world , with exactly the kinds of testing methodologies you referred to .
The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you do n't account for , and that means the possibility of failure.Even formal risk assessments only take into the account the risk factors they examine .
The problem is n't the things you think about - it is the thing that nobody thought of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't underestimate the complexity of these kinds of systems.
Rigorously testing them is actually incredibly difficult and expensive.
Yes, there are formalized methods that help, and I'd be shocked if something like a car's braking system didn't use them extensively.How many spacecraft have been lost so far?
Consider that every part and system in them has been subjected to the most rigorous quality control systems in the world, with exactly the kinds of testing methodologies you referred to.
The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.Even formal risk assessments only take into the account the risk factors they examine.
The problem isn't the things you think about - it is the thing that nobody thought of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391202</id>
	<title>Re:"An event to challenge Evidence"</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While your post is offtopic to the comment you're replying to, I agree it was an interesting read.  However, the entire testimony has one fundamental flaw: it assumes that because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set, that that exact same situation can occur in the absence of being induced.
<p>
The entire testimony is built on that unproven assumption, without venturing to explain how it could occur in normal operations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your post is offtopic to the comment you 're replying to , I agree it was an interesting read .
However , the entire testimony has one fundamental flaw : it assumes that because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set , that that exact same situation can occur in the absence of being induced .
The entire testimony is built on that unproven assumption , without venturing to explain how it could occur in normal operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your post is offtopic to the comment you're replying to, I agree it was an interesting read.
However, the entire testimony has one fundamental flaw: it assumes that because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set, that that exact same situation can occur in the absence of being induced.
The entire testimony is built on that unproven assumption, without venturing to explain how it could occur in normal operations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397468</id>
	<title>Bug-Free Software Is Indeed Possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267984620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all nonsense. There can indeed be bug-free software and it can be rigorously proven. Examples are thermostat programs that control the temperature of a room. These are programs that can be shown to be 100\% correct. The reason that complex software is unreliable can be attributed to the computer scientists of the last century who turned the Turing Machine into a cult symbol. They also worship Frederic Brooks, the man who wrote the famous 'No Silver Bullet' paper in 1986 and convinced everybody that it's impossible to solve the software unreliability crisis. There are <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-to-construct-100-bug-free-software.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">others who disagree</a> [blogspot.com], of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all nonsense .
There can indeed be bug-free software and it can be rigorously proven .
Examples are thermostat programs that control the temperature of a room .
These are programs that can be shown to be 100 \ % correct .
The reason that complex software is unreliable can be attributed to the computer scientists of the last century who turned the Turing Machine into a cult symbol .
They also worship Frederic Brooks , the man who wrote the famous 'No Silver Bullet ' paper in 1986 and convinced everybody that it 's impossible to solve the software unreliability crisis .
There are others who disagree [ blogspot.com ] , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all nonsense.
There can indeed be bug-free software and it can be rigorously proven.
Examples are thermostat programs that control the temperature of a room.
These are programs that can be shown to be 100\% correct.
The reason that complex software is unreliable can be attributed to the computer scientists of the last century who turned the Turing Machine into a cult symbol.
They also worship Frederic Brooks, the man who wrote the famous 'No Silver Bullet' paper in 1986 and convinced everybody that it's impossible to solve the software unreliability crisis.
There are others who disagree [blogspot.com], of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392210</id>
	<title>Re:followup comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your advice would be great were it not for the fact that most driver education courses in America teach student drivers to use only relatively delicate applications of the brakes (to avoid skids), almost nobody has ever experimented in their own car to find out just how hard you have to press the pedal to achieve maximum braking, and studies have shown that many drivers are afraid to use maximum braking even in emergency conditions.</p><p>Oh, and also that fly-by-wire engine and transmission systems may well accept driver control inputs as mere suggestions rather than commands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your advice would be great were it not for the fact that most driver education courses in America teach student drivers to use only relatively delicate applications of the brakes ( to avoid skids ) , almost nobody has ever experimented in their own car to find out just how hard you have to press the pedal to achieve maximum braking , and studies have shown that many drivers are afraid to use maximum braking even in emergency conditions.Oh , and also that fly-by-wire engine and transmission systems may well accept driver control inputs as mere suggestions rather than commands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your advice would be great were it not for the fact that most driver education courses in America teach student drivers to use only relatively delicate applications of the brakes (to avoid skids), almost nobody has ever experimented in their own car to find out just how hard you have to press the pedal to achieve maximum braking, and studies have shown that many drivers are afraid to use maximum braking even in emergency conditions.Oh, and also that fly-by-wire engine and transmission systems may well accept driver control inputs as mere suggestions rather than commands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390584</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1267981860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's even hardware to do it. <a href="http://www.dspaceinc.com/ww/en/inc/home.cfm" title="dspaceinc.com">dSpace</a> [dspaceinc.com] sells some very nice (and very expensive) hardware to do testing. You can setup scripts to test almost any scenario. It'll fake out all the basic sensors and then you can test to see what happens when you hit the brake at 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph. You can do burn in tests. Software is very very repeatable. You can often trace right through the Simulink model and find out what is going on.</p><p>In the latest versions of CANape you can even view your <a href="http://www.vector.com/vi\_canape\_modelviewer\_en,,223.html" title="vector.com">Simulink Model EXACTLY how you built them and add all of your signal channels to it</a> [vector.com]. If there is a bug or people are experiencing problems, it takes all of an hour at most to figure out what is going on and what is causing it.</p><p>And given the short cycle time, you don't have time to rewrite everything. Every company that uses Simulink for models even has verified and validated library blocks. We have a "C to K" block (because one isn't built in). That automatically matches In &amp; Out data types, etc. We have low pass filters that are designed to our companies standards....</p><p>And we have engine control models that have been ported from Assembly that have been used for 30 years that 'work'. We're not going to throw that all out the window every development cycle.</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1564476&amp;cid=31286970" title="slashdot.org">Previous comments on how Simulink</a> [slashdot.org] is used to write code in companies that use it.<br><a href="http://www.mathworks.co.kr/products/techkitpdfs/20303.pdf" title="mathworks.co.kr">SAE Paper on how Caterpillar</a> [mathworks.co.kr] uses auto coding generation to write their stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's even hardware to do it .
dSpace [ dspaceinc.com ] sells some very nice ( and very expensive ) hardware to do testing .
You can setup scripts to test almost any scenario .
It 'll fake out all the basic sensors and then you can test to see what happens when you hit the brake at 10 mph , 20 mph , 30 mph .
You can do burn in tests .
Software is very very repeatable .
You can often trace right through the Simulink model and find out what is going on.In the latest versions of CANape you can even view your Simulink Model EXACTLY how you built them and add all of your signal channels to it [ vector.com ] .
If there is a bug or people are experiencing problems , it takes all of an hour at most to figure out what is going on and what is causing it.And given the short cycle time , you do n't have time to rewrite everything .
Every company that uses Simulink for models even has verified and validated library blocks .
We have a " C to K " block ( because one is n't built in ) .
That automatically matches In &amp; Out data types , etc .
We have low pass filters that are designed to our companies standards....And we have engine control models that have been ported from Assembly that have been used for 30 years that 'work' .
We 're not going to throw that all out the window every development cycle.Previous comments on how Simulink [ slashdot.org ] is used to write code in companies that use it.SAE Paper on how Caterpillar [ mathworks.co.kr ] uses auto coding generation to write their stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's even hardware to do it.
dSpace [dspaceinc.com] sells some very nice (and very expensive) hardware to do testing.
You can setup scripts to test almost any scenario.
It'll fake out all the basic sensors and then you can test to see what happens when you hit the brake at 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph.
You can do burn in tests.
Software is very very repeatable.
You can often trace right through the Simulink model and find out what is going on.In the latest versions of CANape you can even view your Simulink Model EXACTLY how you built them and add all of your signal channels to it [vector.com].
If there is a bug or people are experiencing problems, it takes all of an hour at most to figure out what is going on and what is causing it.And given the short cycle time, you don't have time to rewrite everything.
Every company that uses Simulink for models even has verified and validated library blocks.
We have a "C to K" block (because one isn't built in).
That automatically matches In &amp; Out data types, etc.
We have low pass filters that are designed to our companies standards....And we have engine control models that have been ported from Assembly that have been used for 30 years that 'work'.
We're not going to throw that all out the window every development cycle.Previous comments on how Simulink [slashdot.org] is used to write code in companies that use it.SAE Paper on how Caterpillar [mathworks.co.kr] uses auto coding generation to write their stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393164</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think it odd?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1267953240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I find it interesting that, in quest of featuritis, designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards. Direct physical connection of steering columns, braking systems, and throttles (so they act as a stopcock, it's good enough for jet fighters!) should be mandatory.</p></div></blockquote><p>The positive effect of computer controlled systems far outweighs the risks.  ABS, electronic stability control, etc. were introduced because they <i>reduce</i> accident rates.  Period.</p><p>Without computer-controlled systems, todays' cars would be dirtier and less safe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that , in quest of featuritis , designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards .
Direct physical connection of steering columns , braking systems , and throttles ( so they act as a stopcock , it 's good enough for jet fighters !
) should be mandatory.The positive effect of computer controlled systems far outweighs the risks .
ABS , electronic stability control , etc .
were introduced because they reduce accident rates .
Period.Without computer-controlled systems , todays ' cars would be dirtier and less safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that, in quest of featuritis, designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards.
Direct physical connection of steering columns, braking systems, and throttles (so they act as a stopcock, it's good enough for jet fighters!
) should be mandatory.The positive effect of computer controlled systems far outweighs the risks.
ABS, electronic stability control, etc.
were introduced because they reduce accident rates.
Period.Without computer-controlled systems, todays' cars would be dirtier and less safe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392158</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they're right--because your vast quantity of engineering experience, not to mention excellent remote viewing capabilities, have allowed you to properly deduce the cause of each and every accident remotely, without such bothersome things as actual testing, experiments, and other such drudgery.  I take my hat off to you, sir.  You are truly a marvel of scientific genius, or at least what passes for it in the anti-worker, anti-consumer crowd these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they 're right--because your vast quantity of engineering experience , not to mention excellent remote viewing capabilities , have allowed you to properly deduce the cause of each and every accident remotely , without such bothersome things as actual testing , experiments , and other such drudgery .
I take my hat off to you , sir .
You are truly a marvel of scientific genius , or at least what passes for it in the anti-worker , anti-consumer crowd these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they're right--because your vast quantity of engineering experience, not to mention excellent remote viewing capabilities, have allowed you to properly deduce the cause of each and every accident remotely, without such bothersome things as actual testing, experiments, and other such drudgery.
I take my hat off to you, sir.
You are truly a marvel of scientific genius, or at least what passes for it in the anti-worker, anti-consumer crowd these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393964</id>
	<title>It may remain a mystery.</title>
	<author>WhatDoIKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1267958520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>100 incidents out of millions of cars, each driven for years and thousands of miles... There is a good chance Toyota may NEVER discover the actual cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 incidents out of millions of cars , each driven for years and thousands of miles... There is a good chance Toyota may NEVER discover the actual cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 incidents out of millions of cars, each driven for years and thousands of miles... There is a good chance Toyota may NEVER discover the actual cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</id>
	<title>falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1267981560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong. The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.'</i>

</p><p>This was true with Audi in the 80's, when 60 Minutes did a report where, among other things, they faked a car accelerating out of control (the car was modified extensively.)  And yes, a large number of drivers, particularly the elderly, hit the wrong pedal all the time.

</p><p>However, there are cases where driver reports are plenty accurate.  A great example of this would be the problems <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=V70R+uphill+braking" title="google.com">Volvo V70R and S60R owners have with brake failure while going up hills</a> [google.com].

</p><p>I've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I've owned my car.  Each time, I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign, put my foot on the brake, and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage.  This is a car with big, high-performance brakes that can stop on a dime.

</p><p>Volvo claims there's no problem, despite numerous reports on the V70R.com and Swedespeed forums.  No other models demonstrate the behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the driver says they have their foot on the brake , they are just plain wrong .
The human motor system is not perfect , and it does n't always do what it is told .
' This was true with Audi in the 80 's , when 60 Minutes did a report where , among other things , they faked a car accelerating out of control ( the car was modified extensively .
) And yes , a large number of drivers , particularly the elderly , hit the wrong pedal all the time .
However , there are cases where driver reports are plenty accurate .
A great example of this would be the problems Volvo V70R and S60R owners have with brake failure while going up hills [ google.com ] .
I 've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I 've owned my car .
Each time , I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign , put my foot on the brake , and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage .
This is a car with big , high-performance brakes that can stop on a dime .
Volvo claims there 's no problem , despite numerous reports on the V70R.com and Swedespeed forums .
No other models demonstrate the behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong.
The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.
'

This was true with Audi in the 80's, when 60 Minutes did a report where, among other things, they faked a car accelerating out of control (the car was modified extensively.
)  And yes, a large number of drivers, particularly the elderly, hit the wrong pedal all the time.
However, there are cases where driver reports are plenty accurate.
A great example of this would be the problems Volvo V70R and S60R owners have with brake failure while going up hills [google.com].
I've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I've owned my car.
Each time, I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign, put my foot on the brake, and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage.
This is a car with big, high-performance brakes that can stop on a dime.
Volvo claims there's no problem, despite numerous reports on the V70R.com and Swedespeed forums.
No other models demonstrate the behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391738</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1267988040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually (And we are having our doubts about it already).</p></div></blockquote><p>Absolute 0 is the coldest a material can get.  You can have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_temperature" title="wikipedia.org">temperature lower than 0 Kelvin</a> [wikipedia.org], but it doesn't mean what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>0K is considered the absolute zero , but It 'll probably be challenged eventually ( And we are having our doubts about it already ) .Absolute 0 is the coldest a material can get .
You can have a temperature lower than 0 Kelvin [ wikipedia.org ] , but it does n't mean what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually (And we are having our doubts about it already).Absolute 0 is the coldest a material can get.
You can have a temperature lower than 0 Kelvin [wikipedia.org], but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391774</id>
	<title>Not lawyers, use professional engineering bodies</title>
	<author>Morgaine</author>
	<datestamp>1267988220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your suggestion that politicians are inappropriate while courts are appropriate doesn't make much sense.  They're both of the same class, namely, both preoccupied with law and both clueless about technology.  Even worse, the court system is adversarial and leads towards dollar damage limitation, not technological analysis.</p><p>This is an engineering problem, and the right institutions to handle it are the professional engineering bodies, particularly in Electrical Engineering and Electronics and in Mechanical Engineering, who for the most part are not corrupt, and they most definitely are not clueless about the technology.</p><p>Furthermore, they have a professional interest in staying outside of the financial and legal skirmishes, because their reputations depend on it.  In a world that's truly messed up politically, economically and legally, Chartered Engineer is one of the few labels that still means something solid, at least to those who actually produce real things.</p><p>And in this particular subject, we really do need objective and trustworthy analysis of a very complex problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your suggestion that politicians are inappropriate while courts are appropriate does n't make much sense .
They 're both of the same class , namely , both preoccupied with law and both clueless about technology .
Even worse , the court system is adversarial and leads towards dollar damage limitation , not technological analysis.This is an engineering problem , and the right institutions to handle it are the professional engineering bodies , particularly in Electrical Engineering and Electronics and in Mechanical Engineering , who for the most part are not corrupt , and they most definitely are not clueless about the technology.Furthermore , they have a professional interest in staying outside of the financial and legal skirmishes , because their reputations depend on it .
In a world that 's truly messed up politically , economically and legally , Chartered Engineer is one of the few labels that still means something solid , at least to those who actually produce real things.And in this particular subject , we really do need objective and trustworthy analysis of a very complex problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your suggestion that politicians are inappropriate while courts are appropriate doesn't make much sense.
They're both of the same class, namely, both preoccupied with law and both clueless about technology.
Even worse, the court system is adversarial and leads towards dollar damage limitation, not technological analysis.This is an engineering problem, and the right institutions to handle it are the professional engineering bodies, particularly in Electrical Engineering and Electronics and in Mechanical Engineering, who for the most part are not corrupt, and they most definitely are not clueless about the technology.Furthermore, they have a professional interest in staying outside of the financial and legal skirmishes, because their reputations depend on it.
In a world that's truly messed up politically, economically and legally, Chartered Engineer is one of the few labels that still means something solid, at least to those who actually produce real things.And in this particular subject, we really do need objective and trustworthy analysis of a very complex problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606</id>
	<title>Anyone else think it odd?</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1267981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default "debugging" which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop.<br>
Why does the vehicle ABS (from what I know from the news) get tripped up on instant breaking?  Really? ABS... the thing that is supposed to pump the break to allow for cleaner stops triggers breaking problems and increased acceleration?<br>
<br>
I just think bad coding in general here. Regardless of "testing"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default " debugging " which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop .
Why does the vehicle ABS ( from what I know from the news ) get tripped up on instant breaking ?
Really ? ABS... the thing that is supposed to pump the break to allow for cleaner stops triggers breaking problems and increased acceleration ?
I just think bad coding in general here .
Regardless of " testing "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default "debugging" which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop.
Why does the vehicle ABS (from what I know from the news) get tripped up on instant breaking?
Really? ABS... the thing that is supposed to pump the break to allow for cleaner stops triggers breaking problems and increased acceleration?
I just think bad coding in general here.
Regardless of "testing"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574</id>
	<title>tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>come on, it's just a big conspiracy.<br>it's not like 100, 200, one thousand toyotas are<br>skidding of the highway and into a tree everyday.<br>there are like a handful of incidents.<br>-<br>naw, this is just a big PR campaign of american motor<br>industry to smear superior japanese tech.<br>the prius is like a 5 year old  car model and in all this<br>time american "muscle"  motor never came up with an answer.<br>-<br>big oil and big car a big happy american family.<br>-<br>the engine (sic) that drives the (u.s.) capitalistic machine needs<br>consumption and waste, not innovation and thriftiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>come on , it 's just a big conspiracy.it 's not like 100 , 200 , one thousand toyotas areskidding of the highway and into a tree everyday.there are like a handful of incidents.-naw , this is just a big PR campaign of american motorindustry to smear superior japanese tech.the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all thistime american " muscle " motor never came up with an answer.-big oil and big car a big happy american family.-the engine ( sic ) that drives the ( u.s. ) capitalistic machine needsconsumption and waste , not innovation and thriftiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>come on, it's just a big conspiracy.it's not like 100, 200, one thousand toyotas areskidding of the highway and into a tree everyday.there are like a handful of incidents.-naw, this is just a big PR campaign of american motorindustry to smear superior japanese tech.the prius is like a 5 year old  car model and in all thistime american "muscle"  motor never came up with an answer.-big oil and big car a big happy american family.-the engine (sic) that drives the (u.s.) capitalistic machine needsconsumption and waste, not innovation and thriftiness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391656</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1267987620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Of course Toyota is right.</i> <br> <br>
Mr. Watanabe?  Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Toyota is right .
Mr. Watanabe ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Toyota is right.
Mr. Watanabe?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395624</id>
	<title>Halting Problem solved? (was Re:What?)</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1267969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alan Turing is rolling in his grave and Donald Knuth is waiting for your phone call to explain how you have solved the Halting Problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alan Turing is rolling in his grave and Donald Knuth is waiting for your phone call to explain how you have solved the Halting Problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alan Turing is rolling in his grave and Donald Knuth is waiting for your phone call to explain how you have solved the Halting Problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393084</id>
	<title>Re:Formal verification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267952580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you have heard of formal verification. But have you applied it in practice? What's the point of verifying some maths, when it is the (embedded, distributed, hard real-time) SW that counts. Whenever you do formal verification (in a as complex system as a car), you have to emulate *something* (SW, car, driver, environment...). Plenty of chances for errors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you have heard of formal verification .
But have you applied it in practice ?
What 's the point of verifying some maths , when it is the ( embedded , distributed , hard real-time ) SW that counts .
Whenever you do formal verification ( in a as complex system as a car ) , you have to emulate * something * ( SW , car , driver , environment... ) .
Plenty of chances for errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you have heard of formal verification.
But have you applied it in practice?
What's the point of verifying some maths, when it is the (embedded, distributed, hard real-time) SW that counts.
Whenever you do formal verification (in a as complex system as a car), you have to emulate *something* (SW, car, driver, environment...).
Plenty of chances for errors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392968</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>DrDitto</author>
	<datestamp>1267995060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I own a Nissan.  But my next car will be a Ford.  As someone involved with the higher education of engineering students, Ford and GM recruit engineers from American universities and Toyota/Nissan/Honda do not.  What do you think will happen if engineering students in this country cannot find jobs?  What jobs are more important, hourly manufacturing jobs or higher-end engineering jobs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I own a Nissan .
But my next car will be a Ford .
As someone involved with the higher education of engineering students , Ford and GM recruit engineers from American universities and Toyota/Nissan/Honda do not .
What do you think will happen if engineering students in this country can not find jobs ?
What jobs are more important , hourly manufacturing jobs or higher-end engineering jobs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own a Nissan.
But my next car will be a Ford.
As someone involved with the higher education of engineering students, Ford and GM recruit engineers from American universities and Toyota/Nissan/Honda do not.
What do you think will happen if engineering students in this country cannot find jobs?
What jobs are more important, hourly manufacturing jobs or higher-end engineering jobs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391122</id>
	<title>Remove all electroncis from the accelerator</title>
	<author>smalleyster</author>
	<datestamp>1267984800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remove all electroncis from the accelerator mechanism. Including Cruise Control.

All electronics fail, way too often for comfort.

Electronics are fine for radios, air conditioning, moving your mirrors...but they have absolutely no place in between the driver and the accelerator, the brakes and the steering.

All critical functions should be mechanical.

By Law!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove all electroncis from the accelerator mechanism .
Including Cruise Control .
All electronics fail , way too often for comfort .
Electronics are fine for radios , air conditioning , moving your mirrors...but they have absolutely no place in between the driver and the accelerator , the brakes and the steering .
All critical functions should be mechanical .
By Law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove all electroncis from the accelerator mechanism.
Including Cruise Control.
All electronics fail, way too often for comfort.
Electronics are fine for radios, air conditioning, moving your mirrors...but they have absolutely no place in between the driver and the accelerator, the brakes and the steering.
All critical functions should be mechanical.
By Law!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400934</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1268065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Why exactly was there a Congressional investigation into Ford when their Explorers were prone to rollover? Really - heaven forbid Toyota get the same treatment as other automotive manufacturers. No one even said anything when Toyota redesigned their trucks to fix a serious safety issue but didn't bother to recall the trucks with the problem.

</p><p>If you want to bitch about irrelevant issues, let's ask why the DoJ is threatening to investigate the BCS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ?
Why exactly was there a Congressional investigation into Ford when their Explorers were prone to rollover ?
Really - heaven forbid Toyota get the same treatment as other automotive manufacturers .
No one even said anything when Toyota redesigned their trucks to fix a serious safety issue but did n't bother to recall the trucks with the problem .
If you want to bitch about irrelevant issues , let 's ask why the DoJ is threatening to investigate the BCS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?
Why exactly was there a Congressional investigation into Ford when their Explorers were prone to rollover?
Really - heaven forbid Toyota get the same treatment as other automotive manufacturers.
No one even said anything when Toyota redesigned their trucks to fix a serious safety issue but didn't bother to recall the trucks with the problem.
If you want to bitch about irrelevant issues, let's ask why the DoJ is threatening to investigate the BCS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397868</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because Congress (under its Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce) makes laws that regulate the auto industry.</p><blockquote><div><p>It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA.</p></div></blockquote><p>Toyota is directly or indirectly responsible for <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-workers-rally-for-japans-toyota-2010-02-24" title="marketwatch.com" rel="nofollow">170,000 U.S. jobs</a> [marketwatch.com] -- jobs held by voters. Congress has plenty of interest in Toyota's well being.</p><blockquote><div><p>In short, why do I care about this?</p></div></blockquote><p>If you do not care that people are dying because of defective products, please seek psychiatric attention.</p><blockquote><div><p>File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it.</p></div></blockquote><p>A class action lawsuit would compensate those injured, and the families of those killed. It will not stop the killing, whereas revised regulations might.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ? Because Congress ( under its Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce ) makes laws that regulate the auto industry.It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota 's competitors in the USA.Toyota is directly or indirectly responsible for 170,000 U.S. jobs [ marketwatch.com ] -- jobs held by voters .
Congress has plenty of interest in Toyota 's well being.In short , why do I care about this ? If you do not care that people are dying because of defective products , please seek psychiatric attention.File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it.A class action lawsuit would compensate those injured , and the families of those killed .
It will not stop the killing , whereas revised regulations might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?Because Congress (under its Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce) makes laws that regulate the auto industry.It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA.Toyota is directly or indirectly responsible for 170,000 U.S. jobs [marketwatch.com] -- jobs held by voters.
Congress has plenty of interest in Toyota's well being.In short, why do I care about this?If you do not care that people are dying because of defective products, please seek psychiatric attention.File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it.A class action lawsuit would compensate those injured, and the families of those killed.
It will not stop the killing, whereas revised regulations might.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391268</id>
	<title>Shift to neutral.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual? I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there's a problem.</p><p>Isn't this taught in Driver's Ed? I know I was taught to do this if my car ever goes nuts or the gas pedal gets stuck down. Sure it's bad for the engine to be running it that high, but it's a lot better for it than being crunched into a wall or car is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual ?
I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there 's a problem.Is n't this taught in Driver 's Ed ?
I know I was taught to do this if my car ever goes nuts or the gas pedal gets stuck down .
Sure it 's bad for the engine to be running it that high , but it 's a lot better for it than being crunched into a wall or car is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual?
I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there's a problem.Isn't this taught in Driver's Ed?
I know I was taught to do this if my car ever goes nuts or the gas pedal gets stuck down.
Sure it's bad for the engine to be running it that high, but it's a lot better for it than being crunched into a wall or car is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390362</id>
	<title>Gods fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Toyota shouldn't bother to fix problems until human falability has been removed.</p><p>The real bug is upstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Toyota should n't bother to fix problems until human falability has been removed.The real bug is upstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toyota shouldn't bother to fix problems until human falability has been removed.The real bug is upstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390662</id>
	<title>Verification needs serious improvements</title>
	<author>js3</author>
	<datestamp>1267982280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 2005 G6 used to shake a lot at high speeds. Took it to the dealer 4 times, they would always "do something" but the problem never went away, after the 4th i came to the obvious conclusion they had no bloody idea what they were doing, either sucking my money or just plain clueless. So I took it to a tireshop, one test drive and they informed me one of the back tires was worn and imbalanced. In just 2 hours they fixed what took the dealer a month to figure out.</p><p>The auto industry needs to emerge from the smoke &amp; mirrors age and start taking shit like this seriously. It's just mind boggling how a problem like unintended acceleration and exist for so long with no root cause found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 2005 G6 used to shake a lot at high speeds .
Took it to the dealer 4 times , they would always " do something " but the problem never went away , after the 4th i came to the obvious conclusion they had no bloody idea what they were doing , either sucking my money or just plain clueless .
So I took it to a tireshop , one test drive and they informed me one of the back tires was worn and imbalanced .
In just 2 hours they fixed what took the dealer a month to figure out.The auto industry needs to emerge from the smoke &amp; mirrors age and start taking shit like this seriously .
It 's just mind boggling how a problem like unintended acceleration and exist for so long with no root cause found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 2005 G6 used to shake a lot at high speeds.
Took it to the dealer 4 times, they would always "do something" but the problem never went away, after the 4th i came to the obvious conclusion they had no bloody idea what they were doing, either sucking my money or just plain clueless.
So I took it to a tireshop, one test drive and they informed me one of the back tires was worn and imbalanced.
In just 2 hours they fixed what took the dealer a month to figure out.The auto industry needs to emerge from the smoke &amp; mirrors age and start taking shit like this seriously.
It's just mind boggling how a problem like unintended acceleration and exist for so long with no root cause found.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this? It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA. In short, why, in a country where states are going bankrupt, privacy is an illusion, healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama, rampant spending and tax increases. In short, why do I care about this? File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it. Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering, with stock in competitor's companies and large problems they haven't solved wasting their time with this crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ?
It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota 's competitors in the USA .
In short , why , in a country where states are going bankrupt , privacy is an illusion , healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama , rampant spending and tax increases .
In short , why do I care about this ?
File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it .
Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering , with stock in competitor 's companies and large problems they have n't solved wasting their time with this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?
It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA.
In short, why, in a country where states are going bankrupt, privacy is an illusion, healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama, rampant spending and tax increases.
In short, why do I care about this?
File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it.
Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering, with stock in competitor's companies and large problems they haven't solved wasting their time with this crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</id>
	<title>Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course Toyota is right.  The most likely cause of these "sudden acceleration" problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal.  I've owned plenty of Toyotas, and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now, because now is a great time to buy one.  Unfortunately, my current Toyota only has 150K miles, meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle.  After that... I'll buy another Toyota.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Toyota is right .
The most likely cause of these " sudden acceleration " problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal .
I 've owned plenty of Toyotas , and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now , because now is a great time to buy one .
Unfortunately , my current Toyota only has 150K miles , meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle .
After that... I 'll buy another Toyota .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Toyota is right.
The most likely cause of these "sudden acceleration" problems is humans with their foot on the gas pedal.
I've owned plenty of Toyotas, and I wish that my current Toyota was in need of replacing right now, because now is a great time to buy one.
Unfortunately, my current Toyota only has 150K miles, meaning that I have a good 5-10 years of life in my vehicle.
After that... I'll buy another Toyota.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407988</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, the Volt is better, duh, but it doesnt exist... the prius does. and, this year, straight EVs are coming to a mass market near you.</p><p>EVs for the basics, parallels for occasional power, serials for more range (options); but any ICE should be able to run on biofuel or E85, whichever is more common in your area, not gasoline (options). and any car with a battery pack in it should be able to plug in for power, and to power a house as a backup generator (at least as manufacturer options).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , the Volt is better , duh , but it doesnt exist... the prius does .
and , this year , straight EVs are coming to a mass market near you.EVs for the basics , parallels for occasional power , serials for more range ( options ) ; but any ICE should be able to run on biofuel or E85 , whichever is more common in your area , not gasoline ( options ) .
and any car with a battery pack in it should be able to plug in for power , and to power a house as a backup generator ( at least as manufacturer options ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, the Volt is better, duh, but it doesnt exist... the prius does.
and, this year, straight EVs are coming to a mass market near you.EVs for the basics, parallels for occasional power, serials for more range (options); but any ICE should be able to run on biofuel or E85, whichever is more common in your area, not gasoline (options).
and any car with a battery pack in it should be able to plug in for power, and to power a house as a backup generator (at least as manufacturer options).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395540</id>
	<title>Re:here is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes that's about 0.001\%<br>which about 3 times higher than it probably should be</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes that 's about 0.001 \ % which about 3 times higher than it probably should be</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes that's about 0.001\%which about 3 times higher than it probably should be</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391458</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do know modern jet fighters are dynamically unstable and can't be flown mechanically, they must use fly by wire? You do know that if the Airbus that came down in the Hudson had been a previous generation aircraft most of the people on board would probably have died, because the Airbus computer is able to support landing on water and most aircraft aren't?<p>The simple fact is that overall a Prius with its minor brake transfer problem is far safer than any pre-ABS/traction control car. The fault is far less serious than, say, brake fade in drum brakes. And I don't even own a Toyota. You don't need any kind of tinfoil hat to think this is about bashing the part of the motor industry that is not US-owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know modern jet fighters are dynamically unstable and ca n't be flown mechanically , they must use fly by wire ?
You do know that if the Airbus that came down in the Hudson had been a previous generation aircraft most of the people on board would probably have died , because the Airbus computer is able to support landing on water and most aircraft are n't ? The simple fact is that overall a Prius with its minor brake transfer problem is far safer than any pre-ABS/traction control car .
The fault is far less serious than , say , brake fade in drum brakes .
And I do n't even own a Toyota .
You do n't need any kind of tinfoil hat to think this is about bashing the part of the motor industry that is not US-owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know modern jet fighters are dynamically unstable and can't be flown mechanically, they must use fly by wire?
You do know that if the Airbus that came down in the Hudson had been a previous generation aircraft most of the people on board would probably have died, because the Airbus computer is able to support landing on water and most aircraft aren't?The simple fact is that overall a Prius with its minor brake transfer problem is far safer than any pre-ABS/traction control car.
The fault is far less serious than, say, brake fade in drum brakes.
And I don't even own a Toyota.
You don't need any kind of tinfoil hat to think this is about bashing the part of the motor industry that is not US-owned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391284</id>
	<title>Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bug</title>
	<author>egnop</author>
	<datestamp>1267985520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague.</p><p>Edsger...</p><p>Got to love the guy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull .
He therefore approaches his task with full humility , and avoids clever tricks like the plague.Edsger...Got to love the guy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull.
He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague.Edsger...Got to love the guy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393026</id>
	<title>OT: the shame</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267995420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it assumes <b>that</b> because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set, <b>that</b> <b>that</b> exact same situation...</p></div><p>I am deeply ashamed by the above pathetic excuse for a sentence, and apologize.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it assumes that because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set , that that exact same situation...I am deeply ashamed by the above pathetic excuse for a sentence , and apologize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it assumes that because a situation can be induced in which no error code is set, that that exact same situation...I am deeply ashamed by the above pathetic excuse for a sentence, and apologize.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391814</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1267988520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's one brought to the dealer with engine pegged:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-without-floor-mat.html" title="leftlanenews.com">http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-without-floor-mat.html</a> [leftlanenews.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's one brought to the dealer with engine pegged : http : //www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-without-floor-mat.html [ leftlanenews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's one brought to the dealer with engine pegged: 
http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-without-floor-mat.html [leftlanenews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394172</id>
	<title>No way of verifying/validating software?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267959780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."</p></div><p>It&rsquo;s called <strong> <a href="http://haskell.org/" title="haskell.org">Haskell</a> [haskell.org] </strong> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCheck" title="wikipedia.org">QuickCheck</a> [wikipedia.org], idiots! Look it up!<br>And yes! It gives you guarantees on the level of mathematical proof, that it&rsquo;s doing what it&rsquo;s supposed to do!</p><p>How can someone work in an area where it&rsquo;s about life and death of real people, and not know that??<br>Imagine someone saying that who works in the business of heart-lung-machine development. It&rsquo;s hair-raising!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
" It    s called Haskell [ haskell.org ] with QuickCheck [ wikipedia.org ] , idiots !
Look it up ! And yes !
It gives you guarantees on the level of mathematical proof , that it    s doing what it    s supposed to do ! How can someone work in an area where it    s about life and death of real people , and not know that ?
? Imagine someone saying that who works in the business of heart-lung-machine development .
It    s hair-raising !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"It’s called  Haskell [haskell.org]  with QuickCheck [wikipedia.org], idiots!
Look it up!And yes!
It gives you guarantees on the level of mathematical proof, that it’s doing what it’s supposed to do!How can someone work in an area where it’s about life and death of real people, and not know that?
?Imagine someone saying that who works in the business of heart-lung-machine development.
It’s hair-raising!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392246</id>
	<title>Re:Shift to neutral.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual? I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there's a problem.''</p><p>Not as easy as one might suppose. Driving depends a lot on trained responses, and shifting to manual is just not one of them. That means it takes conscious effort. And conscious effort is difficult when the world suddenly goes out of control - the first reaction most people have is surprise, and the second reaction usually panic. Rational thought is difficult under those circumstances.</p><p>``Isn't this taught in Driver's Ed?''</p><p>What is this Driver's Ed you speak of? My experience in California is that you can get a license if you manage to drive a car around a block or two. In the Netherlands, where I got my license, it's at least customary to take several lessons before attempting the exam, but the lessons don't cover emergency scenarios, and those certainly aren't part of the exam. Long story short, if you got this as part of your education, your education is better than what I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual ?
I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there 's a problem .
''Not as easy as one might suppose .
Driving depends a lot on trained responses , and shifting to manual is just not one of them .
That means it takes conscious effort .
And conscious effort is difficult when the world suddenly goes out of control - the first reaction most people have is surprise , and the second reaction usually panic .
Rational thought is difficult under those circumstances. ` ` Is n't this taught in Driver 's Ed ?
''What is this Driver 's Ed you speak of ?
My experience in California is that you can get a license if you manage to drive a car around a block or two .
In the Netherlands , where I got my license , it 's at least customary to take several lessons before attempting the exam , but the lessons do n't cover emergency scenarios , and those certainly are n't part of the exam .
Long story short , if you got this as part of your education , your education is better than what I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``How bloody difficult is it to shift to neutral in an automatic or put the clutch in on a manual?
I can do either of these tasks in a fraction of a second when I find there's a problem.
''Not as easy as one might suppose.
Driving depends a lot on trained responses, and shifting to manual is just not one of them.
That means it takes conscious effort.
And conscious effort is difficult when the world suddenly goes out of control - the first reaction most people have is surprise, and the second reaction usually panic.
Rational thought is difficult under those circumstances.``Isn't this taught in Driver's Ed?
''What is this Driver's Ed you speak of?
My experience in California is that you can get a license if you manage to drive a car around a block or two.
In the Netherlands, where I got my license, it's at least customary to take several lessons before attempting the exam, but the lessons don't cover emergency scenarios, and those certainly aren't part of the exam.
Long story short, if you got this as part of your education, your education is better than what I've seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394676</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had to mod this down, because the formatting is terrible, and it just reads like a typical troll.  However, I too am curious about the relationships among the US government, the US car companies they plunged all my money into, and this foreign competitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to mod this down , because the formatting is terrible , and it just reads like a typical troll .
However , I too am curious about the relationships among the US government , the US car companies they plunged all my money into , and this foreign competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to mod this down, because the formatting is terrible, and it just reads like a typical troll.
However, I too am curious about the relationships among the US government, the US car companies they plunged all my money into, and this foreign competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>Win Hill</author>
	<datestamp>1267985100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Professor Richard Schmidt says user reports are often unreliable: 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong."
My '08 Prious has had three "surge" events.  I was able to stop all three times.  In the most serious case there was a group of people standing about 20 feet in front of me, and my car stated surging towards them.  I jammed my foot on the brake but was not winning the battle.  Normally the Prius brakes are very sensitive and do not have to be pressed hard, so I was using my normal braking force.  Quickly becoming alarmed, I pushed harder on the brake, with some effect, but still fighting the electric motor and the gas engine trying to power the car forward.  I had to push harder than I ever recall doing to stop the car.  At that point engine activity ceased.  The people, now about 10-feet away, looked at me like I was an idiot, gunning my car toward them!  I was just glad to be stopped.

I challenge professor Richard Schmidt:  If my foot was on the accelerator, how did I in fact stop?

The Toyota people have told me they'll be reflashing the processors of all the Prius cars in a few months so any brake signal will shut down the engine.  Why wasn't that done from the beginning?  But anyway, I'm looking forward to the modification.  In the meantime, I'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Professor Richard Schmidt says user reports are often unreliable : 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake , they are just plain wrong .
" My '08 Prious has had three " surge " events .
I was able to stop all three times .
In the most serious case there was a group of people standing about 20 feet in front of me , and my car stated surging towards them .
I jammed my foot on the brake but was not winning the battle .
Normally the Prius brakes are very sensitive and do not have to be pressed hard , so I was using my normal braking force .
Quickly becoming alarmed , I pushed harder on the brake , with some effect , but still fighting the electric motor and the gas engine trying to power the car forward .
I had to push harder than I ever recall doing to stop the car .
At that point engine activity ceased .
The people , now about 10-feet away , looked at me like I was an idiot , gunning my car toward them !
I was just glad to be stopped .
I challenge professor Richard Schmidt : If my foot was on the accelerator , how did I in fact stop ?
The Toyota people have told me they 'll be reflashing the processors of all the Prius cars in a few months so any brake signal will shut down the engine .
Why was n't that done from the beginning ?
But anyway , I 'm looking forward to the modification .
In the meantime , I 'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Professor Richard Schmidt says user reports are often unreliable: 'When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong.
"
My '08 Prious has had three "surge" events.
I was able to stop all three times.
In the most serious case there was a group of people standing about 20 feet in front of me, and my car stated surging towards them.
I jammed my foot on the brake but was not winning the battle.
Normally the Prius brakes are very sensitive and do not have to be pressed hard, so I was using my normal braking force.
Quickly becoming alarmed, I pushed harder on the brake, with some effect, but still fighting the electric motor and the gas engine trying to power the car forward.
I had to push harder than I ever recall doing to stop the car.
At that point engine activity ceased.
The people, now about 10-feet away, looked at me like I was an idiot, gunning my car toward them!
I was just glad to be stopped.
I challenge professor Richard Schmidt:  If my foot was on the accelerator, how did I in fact stop?
The Toyota people have told me they'll be reflashing the processors of all the Prius cars in a few months so any brake signal will shut down the engine.
Why wasn't that done from the beginning?
But anyway, I'm looking forward to the modification.
In the meantime, I'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390974</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>ItsJustAPseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1267984020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry."  <br> <br>

In general, I am also suspicious of "visual programming" tools.  The user almost-always has to finish the job with a detailed understanding of the deployment, in terms of source code, or low-level drivers, etc.  <br> <br>

However, the use of high-level abstraction to design at the system-level, and then the use of "system-in-the-loop" techniques to drill down to actual implementation, is a very valuable methodology.  You can take a huge system spec, implement components  from the top down, and successively replace each component with increasingly-specific implementations.  In the end, you can have prototype hardware in the mix.<br> <br>

This technique is rather expensive, and I have no idea if Toyota uses it or not.  But it works, when done right.  Like I said, though, the user has to have a pretty good idea of the final implementation of each system and component.  If he/she just glosses over the final details, then he/she will end up with surprises.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry .
" In general , I am also suspicious of " visual programming " tools .
The user almost-always has to finish the job with a detailed understanding of the deployment , in terms of source code , or low-level drivers , etc .
However , the use of high-level abstraction to design at the system-level , and then the use of " system-in-the-loop " techniques to drill down to actual implementation , is a very valuable methodology .
You can take a huge system spec , implement components from the top down , and successively replace each component with increasingly-specific implementations .
In the end , you can have prototype hardware in the mix .
This technique is rather expensive , and I have no idea if Toyota uses it or not .
But it works , when done right .
Like I said , though , the user has to have a pretty good idea of the final implementation of each system and component .
If he/she just glosses over the final details , then he/she will end up with surprises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry.
"   

In general, I am also suspicious of "visual programming" tools.
The user almost-always has to finish the job with a detailed understanding of the deployment, in terms of source code, or low-level drivers, etc.
However, the use of high-level abstraction to design at the system-level, and then the use of "system-in-the-loop" techniques to drill down to actual implementation, is a very valuable methodology.
You can take a huge system spec, implement components  from the top down, and successively replace each component with increasingly-specific implementations.
In the end, you can have prototype hardware in the mix.
This technique is rather expensive, and I have no idea if Toyota uses it or not.
But it works, when done right.
Like I said, though, the user has to have a pretty good idea of the final implementation of each system and component.
If he/she just glosses over the final details, then he/she will end up with surprises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391086</id>
	<title>Re:Software has no business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267984620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the proportion of software-caused car accidents to human-caused accidents, I think we can more reasonably state that <em>humans</em> have no business being in control of braking and acceleration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the proportion of software-caused car accidents to human-caused accidents , I think we can more reasonably state that humans have no business being in control of braking and acceleration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the proportion of software-caused car accidents to human-caused accidents, I think we can more reasonably state that humans have no business being in control of braking and acceleration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394158</id>
	<title>Re:followup comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine.<br>On the Toyota Prius they don't.  The combined electric and internal combustoin propulsion system has more torque than the brakes.  This is why ECM software in Priuses (Prii?) is now being updated to cut power to the electric propulsion system if the brake pedal is touched.  It also implies that before this software update there is an unsafe failure mode.</p><p>The Audi 100/5000 idle stabilization valve had a nasty habit of sticking in the wide open position on cold mornings.  Enough to idle at 2,500 revs.  With your foot on the brake you could then put it into D from N and be VERY unpleasantly surprised at the speed with which the car would take off as soon as you released the brake.  Been there, done that.   (You don't need to lay down rubber to crush someone against a garage wall.  Crushing them with a 1.5 ton car moving at 15mph will do.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; On virtually every production car made on the planet , the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine.On the Toyota Prius they do n't .
The combined electric and internal combustoin propulsion system has more torque than the brakes .
This is why ECM software in Priuses ( Prii ?
) is now being updated to cut power to the electric propulsion system if the brake pedal is touched .
It also implies that before this software update there is an unsafe failure mode.The Audi 100/5000 idle stabilization valve had a nasty habit of sticking in the wide open position on cold mornings .
Enough to idle at 2,500 revs .
With your foot on the brake you could then put it into D from N and be VERY unpleasantly surprised at the speed with which the car would take off as soon as you released the brake .
Been there , done that .
( You do n't need to lay down rubber to crush someone against a garage wall .
Crushing them with a 1.5 ton car moving at 15mph will do .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine.On the Toyota Prius they don't.
The combined electric and internal combustoin propulsion system has more torque than the brakes.
This is why ECM software in Priuses (Prii?
) is now being updated to cut power to the electric propulsion system if the brake pedal is touched.
It also implies that before this software update there is an unsafe failure mode.The Audi 100/5000 idle stabilization valve had a nasty habit of sticking in the wide open position on cold mornings.
Enough to idle at 2,500 revs.
With your foot on the brake you could then put it into D from N and be VERY unpleasantly surprised at the speed with which the car would take off as soon as you released the brake.
Been there, done that.
(You don't need to lay down rubber to crush someone against a garage wall.
Crushing them with a 1.5 ton car moving at 15mph will do.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395078</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267965720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then a sensor goes and sends a value you didn't think it could ever send and all your testing means nothing.</p><p>I'm not saying it isn't useful. It certainly IS. But it doesn't PROVE in the mathematical sense that the system can never behave in an unanticipated way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then a sensor goes and sends a value you did n't think it could ever send and all your testing means nothing.I 'm not saying it is n't useful .
It certainly IS .
But it does n't PROVE in the mathematical sense that the system can never behave in an unanticipated way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then a sensor goes and sends a value you didn't think it could ever send and all your testing means nothing.I'm not saying it isn't useful.
It certainly IS.
But it doesn't PROVE in the mathematical sense that the system can never behave in an unanticipated way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391726</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security."</p><p>That sounds pretty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... absolute. And why yes, you *DO* sound like a delusional religious nutter in your rant, why do you ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security .
" That sounds pretty ... absolute. And why yes , you * DO * sound like a delusional religious nutter in your rant , why do you ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security.
"That sounds pretty ... absolute. And why yes, you *DO* sound like a delusional religious nutter in your rant, why do you ask?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392316</id>
	<title>Cars for people who hate driving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For years, Toyota have built cars with mushy handling and overboosted steering.  In other words, cars for people who hate driving, and would rather be doing anything other than driving, like talking on their cell phone, applying makeup, sending text messages, sleeping, or reading.  At the same time, they have touted their reputation for quality as being infallible.  Of course they're going to be blamed for anything that goes wrong with the car--by making vehicles that cater to distracted and indifferent drivers, they're enabling and encouraging exactly that type of behaviour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For years , Toyota have built cars with mushy handling and overboosted steering .
In other words , cars for people who hate driving , and would rather be doing anything other than driving , like talking on their cell phone , applying makeup , sending text messages , sleeping , or reading .
At the same time , they have touted their reputation for quality as being infallible .
Of course they 're going to be blamed for anything that goes wrong with the car--by making vehicles that cater to distracted and indifferent drivers , they 're enabling and encouraging exactly that type of behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years, Toyota have built cars with mushy handling and overboosted steering.
In other words, cars for people who hate driving, and would rather be doing anything other than driving, like talking on their cell phone, applying makeup, sending text messages, sleeping, or reading.
At the same time, they have touted their reputation for quality as being infallible.
Of course they're going to be blamed for anything that goes wrong with the car--by making vehicles that cater to distracted and indifferent drivers, they're enabling and encouraging exactly that type of behaviour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393878</id>
	<title>Re:Formal verification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can only verify that it satisfies certain mathematical constraints; you can't verify that it Does The Right Thing (TM). Essentially, the only requirements you can actually verify are mathematical constructs which attempt to formalise the actual requirements. You can't verify that the correctness of the formalisation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only verify that it satisfies certain mathematical constraints ; you ca n't verify that it Does The Right Thing ( TM ) .
Essentially , the only requirements you can actually verify are mathematical constructs which attempt to formalise the actual requirements .
You ca n't verify that the correctness of the formalisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only verify that it satisfies certain mathematical constraints; you can't verify that it Does The Right Thing (TM).
Essentially, the only requirements you can actually verify are mathematical constructs which attempt to formalise the actual requirements.
You can't verify that the correctness of the formalisation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391308</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is 100\% correct. See the halting problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is 100 \ % correct .
See the halting problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is 100\% correct.
See the halting problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393096</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>aGuyNamedJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267952700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."</p><p>How wrong can you be? Yes there is. Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions. Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free. Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.</p></div><p>NOT! -- or rather, SO WHAT?</p><p>Let's, for the moment, assume you have a combined hardware and software system that have both been mathematically proved correct.  Presume the proof was completed at Noon on 1 Jan, 2010.  The particular hardware and software so proved is then installed in a vehicle and driven for 50,000 km throughout the  USA -- through rain, snow, desert heat, etc -- and is involved in several minor impacts (backed into a tree, jumped a curb)...<br>In that process salted water is splashed throughout the engine compartment, one dog got carsick, a kid dropped a coke and it splashed under the seat, Dad dropped a cup of coffee under the same seat, the windows were accidentally left open during a rainstorm, a total of 10,000 km was driven with a smoker in the car, and the car was taken to the "detailer" 5 times, where they sprayed various cleansers on the vinyl surfaces (and into the air),   etc.</p><p>A lot of those events can have impacted the hardware that was proved correct before Noon on 1 Jan, 2010.   Corrosives in the air, moisture, dust, yukky liquids, etc.</p><p>Is that proof relevant to the system at the end of that period?</p><p>Fact is, the real world may be modeled by a mathematical system, but it is, itself, not a mathematical system.  The mathematical system may be incapable of failure, but the physical system still may fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
" How wrong can you be ?
Yes there is .
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions .
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed ( or preferably also proven ) to be error free .
Do n't get me wrong , it would be incredibly cost , labor and time expensive , and require real computer scientists , but it is certainly possible.NOT !
-- or rather , SO WHAT ? Let 's , for the moment , assume you have a combined hardware and software system that have both been mathematically proved correct .
Presume the proof was completed at Noon on 1 Jan , 2010 .
The particular hardware and software so proved is then installed in a vehicle and driven for 50,000 km throughout the USA -- through rain , snow , desert heat , etc -- and is involved in several minor impacts ( backed into a tree , jumped a curb ) ...In that process salted water is splashed throughout the engine compartment , one dog got carsick , a kid dropped a coke and it splashed under the seat , Dad dropped a cup of coffee under the same seat , the windows were accidentally left open during a rainstorm , a total of 10,000 km was driven with a smoker in the car , and the car was taken to the " detailer " 5 times , where they sprayed various cleansers on the vinyl surfaces ( and into the air ) , etc.A lot of those events can have impacted the hardware that was proved correct before Noon on 1 Jan , 2010 .
Corrosives in the air , moisture , dust , yukky liquids , etc.Is that proof relevant to the system at the end of that period ? Fact is , the real world may be modeled by a mathematical system , but it is , itself , not a mathematical system .
The mathematical system may be incapable of failure , but the physical system still may fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"How wrong can you be?
Yes there is.
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions.
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free.
Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.NOT!
-- or rather, SO WHAT?Let's, for the moment, assume you have a combined hardware and software system that have both been mathematically proved correct.
Presume the proof was completed at Noon on 1 Jan, 2010.
The particular hardware and software so proved is then installed in a vehicle and driven for 50,000 km throughout the  USA -- through rain, snow, desert heat, etc -- and is involved in several minor impacts (backed into a tree, jumped a curb)...In that process salted water is splashed throughout the engine compartment, one dog got carsick, a kid dropped a coke and it splashed under the seat, Dad dropped a cup of coffee under the same seat, the windows were accidentally left open during a rainstorm, a total of 10,000 km was driven with a smoker in the car, and the car was taken to the "detailer" 5 times, where they sprayed various cleansers on the vinyl surfaces (and into the air),   etc.A lot of those events can have impacted the hardware that was proved correct before Noon on 1 Jan, 2010.
Corrosives in the air, moisture, dust, yukky liquids, etc.Is that proof relevant to the system at the end of that period?Fact is, the real world may be modeled by a mathematical system, but it is, itself, not a mathematical system.
The mathematical system may be incapable of failure, but the physical system still may fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395330</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that statement is wrong.  They forgot the world "practical."</p><p>Yes, it is generally possible to absolutely verify software.  If you'd ever had to do it, you'd know that it's absolute hell to do for even the simplest, almost trivial programs.  It is done, sometimes, for really critical (and small) programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that statement is wrong .
They forgot the world " practical .
" Yes , it is generally possible to absolutely verify software .
If you 'd ever had to do it , you 'd know that it 's absolute hell to do for even the simplest , almost trivial programs .
It is done , sometimes , for really critical ( and small ) programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that statement is wrong.
They forgot the world "practical.
"Yes, it is generally possible to absolutely verify software.
If you'd ever had to do it, you'd know that it's absolute hell to do for even the simplest, almost trivial programs.
It is done, sometimes, for really critical (and small) programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393912</id>
	<title>Compare withmachi machine tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You made a good point. <p>

One of the design "features" of the Toyota product involved in the 2009 fatal accident in San Diego was that the driver needed to press the engine start button for three seconds to kill the engine. Can you imagine any machine tool company making a product that required the emergency stop switch to be depressed for three seconds to turn off the machine? </p><p>

Another issue with that car was that getting the tranny into neutral was not trivial (sport shifting option). </p><p>

Toyota screwed up big-time here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You made a good point .
One of the design " features " of the Toyota product involved in the 2009 fatal accident in San Diego was that the driver needed to press the engine start button for three seconds to kill the engine .
Can you imagine any machine tool company making a product that required the emergency stop switch to be depressed for three seconds to turn off the machine ?
Another issue with that car was that getting the tranny into neutral was not trivial ( sport shifting option ) .
Toyota screwed up big-time here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You made a good point.
One of the design "features" of the Toyota product involved in the 2009 fatal accident in San Diego was that the driver needed to press the engine start button for three seconds to kill the engine.
Can you imagine any machine tool company making a product that required the emergency stop switch to be depressed for three seconds to turn off the machine?
Another issue with that car was that getting the tranny into neutral was not trivial (sport shifting option).
Toyota screwed up big-time here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31401458</id>
	<title>Drive by wire</title>
	<author>snmpkid</author>
	<datestamp>1268068440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion the drive by wire systems in modern cars are not trustworthy enough to own. It amazes me that people who are advocates of Open Source systems to read their email trust their families lives to a proprietary computer every time they drive that shiny new prius.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion the drive by wire systems in modern cars are not trustworthy enough to own .
It amazes me that people who are advocates of Open Source systems to read their email trust their families lives to a proprietary computer every time they drive that shiny new prius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion the drive by wire systems in modern cars are not trustworthy enough to own.
It amazes me that people who are advocates of Open Source systems to read their email trust their families lives to a proprietary computer every time they drive that shiny new prius.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392992</id>
	<title>Black Box Info</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Toyota should be more forthcoming with the black box info on these cars to validate exactly what the driver was doing at the time of the accident. But they won't because lawyers would be all over that data to file lawsuits. still, knowing the truth is best for all involved. Far less finger pointing; far better remediation of the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Toyota should be more forthcoming with the black box info on these cars to validate exactly what the driver was doing at the time of the accident .
But they wo n't because lawyers would be all over that data to file lawsuits .
still , knowing the truth is best for all involved .
Far less finger pointing ; far better remediation of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toyota should be more forthcoming with the black box info on these cars to validate exactly what the driver was doing at the time of the accident.
But they won't because lawyers would be all over that data to file lawsuits.
still, knowing the truth is best for all involved.
Far less finger pointing; far better remediation of the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404</id>
	<title>V&amp;V</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Wikipedia:<br><i>Verification and Validation (V&amp;V) is the process of checking that a software system meets specifications and that it fulfils its intended purpose.</i></p><p>Since they already said the software is "rigorously tested"  does this mean Toyota doesn't have specifications, or that their software doesn't fulfill its intended purpose?</p><p>Their software sounds like its written as a monolithic device driver (NVidia unified device model) comes to mind. Perhaps they should be looking for best practices in TDD, as well as dropping support for older models as time passes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia : Verification and Validation ( V&amp;V ) is the process of checking that a software system meets specifications and that it fulfils its intended purpose.Since they already said the software is " rigorously tested " does this mean Toyota does n't have specifications , or that their software does n't fulfill its intended purpose ? Their software sounds like its written as a monolithic device driver ( NVidia unified device model ) comes to mind .
Perhaps they should be looking for best practices in TDD , as well as dropping support for older models as time passes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia:Verification and Validation (V&amp;V) is the process of checking that a software system meets specifications and that it fulfils its intended purpose.Since they already said the software is "rigorously tested"  does this mean Toyota doesn't have specifications, or that their software doesn't fulfill its intended purpose?Their software sounds like its written as a monolithic device driver (NVidia unified device model) comes to mind.
Perhaps they should be looking for best practices in TDD, as well as dropping support for older models as time passes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390690</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1267982520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people do write software that way. The process is incredibly slow and expensive, which is why a lot of defense contractors use it.</p><p>The problem is that every conditional branch in the program greatly increases the complexity of the proof, since the proof has to account for every possible path through the program. So they write their programs using as few branches as possible, which as you may imagine makes it very hard to get anything done.</p><p>I don't know much about this stuff. Most of it I learned from a conversation with an old unemployed computer scientist. I would have liked to pick his brain a little more, but he was more interested in bitching about his ex-wife, and about how hard it was to find a $200,000 a year job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people do write software that way .
The process is incredibly slow and expensive , which is why a lot of defense contractors use it.The problem is that every conditional branch in the program greatly increases the complexity of the proof , since the proof has to account for every possible path through the program .
So they write their programs using as few branches as possible , which as you may imagine makes it very hard to get anything done.I do n't know much about this stuff .
Most of it I learned from a conversation with an old unemployed computer scientist .
I would have liked to pick his brain a little more , but he was more interested in bitching about his ex-wife , and about how hard it was to find a $ 200,000 a year job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people do write software that way.
The process is incredibly slow and expensive, which is why a lot of defense contractors use it.The problem is that every conditional branch in the program greatly increases the complexity of the proof, since the proof has to account for every possible path through the program.
So they write their programs using as few branches as possible, which as you may imagine makes it very hard to get anything done.I don't know much about this stuff.
Most of it I learned from a conversation with an old unemployed computer scientist.
I would have liked to pick his brain a little more, but he was more interested in bitching about his ex-wife, and about how hard it was to find a $200,000 a year job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036</id>
	<title>followup comments</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1267984320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of follow-up comments:

If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command, put the car in neutral (your engine will be fine, as the engine computer has several "rev limiters" built-in) and apply the brakes STRONGLY.  Don't "ride" the brakes or use them to "control" the speed.  Get over to the side of the road and STOP IMMEDIATELY.  <b>On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine</b>.  60-0MPH is something most cars can do in 100-150 feet.  There are VERY few cars which can do 0-60 in 100 feet (and they are race cars, and have really, really big brakes.)

<p>If neutral won't work- you can also turn off the ignition, but don't turn the key completely off, or you'll engage the steering lock(ie, go to the 'accessory' position.)  You will not "lose steering"; at any speed over about 2-3MPH, steering assist becomes less and less necessary, particularly if you don't have very wide tires.)

</p><p>If you "ride" the brakes, the pad and rotor will heat up and "cook"; consumer, mass-market pads are designed to have good "cold" (ie instant) grab, be easily modulated, quiet, not cause excessive wear on the rotor, and not generate brake dust that is impossible to remove from the wheels.  Racing pads are designed for higher temperatures (where among other things, you get much more heat transfer from the rotor to the air blowing past/through it), but they have very lousy "cold" bite.  Also, heat up the calipers enough, and you will cause the moisture in the brake fluid to boil (your brake fluid should be changed at a MINIMUM every 2 years, because it is hygroscopic), and that boiling will result in "vapor lock"- no brakes.  The brakes MUST be bled after such an incident.

</p><p>Audi successfully defended itself from several lawsuits and even won a countersuit in a case where a mother crushed her boy against their garage wall (after going through the garage door!).  Interviewed by an officer afterwards, she repeatedly said she'd hit the wrong pedal.  They sued a few months later claiming the car had "gone out of control".  As someone who knows Audis well, particularly the mid-80's 5000 turbo series- the idle stabilization valve (the only way the car computer can increase engine speed) simply cannot allow enough air to bypass the throttle enough to cause the car to lay down burnt rubber, crash through a garage door, and embed itself in a house wall.

</p><p>The problems with the Volvo "R" models have been reported in a number of other european cars; you'll also see the words "ice mode" thrown around occasionally.  Many ABS controllers since 1990 or so have an accelerometer to detect when all the wheels stop simultaneously but there is no corresponding negative acceleration.  "Ice mode" is supposedly some sort of variant of this, and there has been great debate as to whether this "mode" is internet folklore, but you'll find many, many posts on all sorts of varying car enthusiast forums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of follow-up comments : If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command , put the car in neutral ( your engine will be fine , as the engine computer has several " rev limiters " built-in ) and apply the brakes STRONGLY .
Do n't " ride " the brakes or use them to " control " the speed .
Get over to the side of the road and STOP IMMEDIATELY .
On virtually every production car made on the planet , the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine .
60-0MPH is something most cars can do in 100-150 feet .
There are VERY few cars which can do 0-60 in 100 feet ( and they are race cars , and have really , really big brakes .
) If neutral wo n't work- you can also turn off the ignition , but do n't turn the key completely off , or you 'll engage the steering lock ( ie , go to the 'accessory ' position .
) You will not " lose steering " ; at any speed over about 2-3MPH , steering assist becomes less and less necessary , particularly if you do n't have very wide tires .
) If you " ride " the brakes , the pad and rotor will heat up and " cook " ; consumer , mass-market pads are designed to have good " cold " ( ie instant ) grab , be easily modulated , quiet , not cause excessive wear on the rotor , and not generate brake dust that is impossible to remove from the wheels .
Racing pads are designed for higher temperatures ( where among other things , you get much more heat transfer from the rotor to the air blowing past/through it ) , but they have very lousy " cold " bite .
Also , heat up the calipers enough , and you will cause the moisture in the brake fluid to boil ( your brake fluid should be changed at a MINIMUM every 2 years , because it is hygroscopic ) , and that boiling will result in " vapor lock " - no brakes .
The brakes MUST be bled after such an incident .
Audi successfully defended itself from several lawsuits and even won a countersuit in a case where a mother crushed her boy against their garage wall ( after going through the garage door ! ) .
Interviewed by an officer afterwards , she repeatedly said she 'd hit the wrong pedal .
They sued a few months later claiming the car had " gone out of control " .
As someone who knows Audis well , particularly the mid-80 's 5000 turbo series- the idle stabilization valve ( the only way the car computer can increase engine speed ) simply can not allow enough air to bypass the throttle enough to cause the car to lay down burnt rubber , crash through a garage door , and embed itself in a house wall .
The problems with the Volvo " R " models have been reported in a number of other european cars ; you 'll also see the words " ice mode " thrown around occasionally .
Many ABS controllers since 1990 or so have an accelerometer to detect when all the wheels stop simultaneously but there is no corresponding negative acceleration .
" Ice mode " is supposedly some sort of variant of this , and there has been great debate as to whether this " mode " is internet folklore , but you 'll find many , many posts on all sorts of varying car enthusiast forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of follow-up comments:

If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command, put the car in neutral (your engine will be fine, as the engine computer has several "rev limiters" built-in) and apply the brakes STRONGLY.
Don't "ride" the brakes or use them to "control" the speed.
Get over to the side of the road and STOP IMMEDIATELY.
On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine.
60-0MPH is something most cars can do in 100-150 feet.
There are VERY few cars which can do 0-60 in 100 feet (and they are race cars, and have really, really big brakes.
)

If neutral won't work- you can also turn off the ignition, but don't turn the key completely off, or you'll engage the steering lock(ie, go to the 'accessory' position.
)  You will not "lose steering"; at any speed over about 2-3MPH, steering assist becomes less and less necessary, particularly if you don't have very wide tires.
)

If you "ride" the brakes, the pad and rotor will heat up and "cook"; consumer, mass-market pads are designed to have good "cold" (ie instant) grab, be easily modulated, quiet, not cause excessive wear on the rotor, and not generate brake dust that is impossible to remove from the wheels.
Racing pads are designed for higher temperatures (where among other things, you get much more heat transfer from the rotor to the air blowing past/through it), but they have very lousy "cold" bite.
Also, heat up the calipers enough, and you will cause the moisture in the brake fluid to boil (your brake fluid should be changed at a MINIMUM every 2 years, because it is hygroscopic), and that boiling will result in "vapor lock"- no brakes.
The brakes MUST be bled after such an incident.
Audi successfully defended itself from several lawsuits and even won a countersuit in a case where a mother crushed her boy against their garage wall (after going through the garage door!).
Interviewed by an officer afterwards, she repeatedly said she'd hit the wrong pedal.
They sued a few months later claiming the car had "gone out of control".
As someone who knows Audis well, particularly the mid-80's 5000 turbo series- the idle stabilization valve (the only way the car computer can increase engine speed) simply cannot allow enough air to bypass the throttle enough to cause the car to lay down burnt rubber, crash through a garage door, and embed itself in a house wall.
The problems with the Volvo "R" models have been reported in a number of other european cars; you'll also see the words "ice mode" thrown around occasionally.
Many ABS controllers since 1990 or so have an accelerometer to detect when all the wheels stop simultaneously but there is no corresponding negative acceleration.
"Ice mode" is supposedly some sort of variant of this, and there has been great debate as to whether this "mode" is internet folklore, but you'll find many, many posts on all sorts of varying car enthusiast forums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31398234</id>
	<title>I really don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell would anybody put accelerator control into the hands of a computer?

System error vs. operator error?

All it takes is a fucking jacketed cable.  It responds reliably every time.

Ok, until the cable rusts through (or just sticks)...I mean, it should be greased...but you just spent at least 15Gs on the damn car so you shouldn't have to do anything, right?

Shit!  What about the EFI throttle body on the receiving end of that cable?  And the ECM (taking input from various $100+ sensors?

----

"We" use things every day that "we" don't understand.  A toaster is one thing.  But a vehicle?

Why the hell would anybody willingly get into a ~3000 pound steel enclosure without understanding how and why everything works in the first place?

Ask the person sitting next to you how internal combustion works.  One out of ten will know.  Ask how transmissions work.  One out of 15...?

Ask how computers (really)  work!  1 out of 20?  "But I use my computer every day..."

Who cooks our food?

Etc., etc., etc.

-Anonymous Troll-ass Coward</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell would anybody put accelerator control into the hands of a computer ?
System error vs. operator error ?
All it takes is a fucking jacketed cable .
It responds reliably every time .
Ok , until the cable rusts through ( or just sticks ) ...I mean , it should be greased...but you just spent at least 15Gs on the damn car so you should n't have to do anything , right ?
Shit ! What about the EFI throttle body on the receiving end of that cable ?
And the ECM ( taking input from various $ 100 + sensors ?
---- " We " use things every day that " we " do n't understand .
A toaster is one thing .
But a vehicle ?
Why the hell would anybody willingly get into a ~ 3000 pound steel enclosure without understanding how and why everything works in the first place ?
Ask the person sitting next to you how internal combustion works .
One out of ten will know .
Ask how transmissions work .
One out of 15... ?
Ask how computers ( really ) work !
1 out of 20 ?
" But I use my computer every day... " Who cooks our food ?
Etc. , etc. , etc .
-Anonymous Troll-ass Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell would anybody put accelerator control into the hands of a computer?
System error vs. operator error?
All it takes is a fucking jacketed cable.
It responds reliably every time.
Ok, until the cable rusts through (or just sticks)...I mean, it should be greased...but you just spent at least 15Gs on the damn car so you shouldn't have to do anything, right?
Shit!  What about the EFI throttle body on the receiving end of that cable?
And the ECM (taking input from various $100+ sensors?
----

"We" use things every day that "we" don't understand.
A toaster is one thing.
But a vehicle?
Why the hell would anybody willingly get into a ~3000 pound steel enclosure without understanding how and why everything works in the first place?
Ask the person sitting next to you how internal combustion works.
One out of ten will know.
Ask how transmissions work.
One out of 15...?
Ask how computers (really)  work!
1 out of 20?
"But I use my computer every day..."

Who cooks our food?
Etc., etc., etc.
-Anonymous Troll-ass Coward</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390726</id>
	<title>Google has the anser</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1267982760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you mean to apply brake instead of  accelerate, <br>Here are the results for brake 1. alive <br>Here are the results for accelerate 1. dead. 2. I'm feeling lucky.<br> Select your option. And yes I know I typed anser instead of answer. It is because I am not pefect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you mean to apply brake instead of accelerate , Here are the results for brake 1. alive Here are the results for accelerate 1. dead. 2 .
I 'm feeling lucky .
Select your option .
And yes I know I typed anser instead of answer .
It is because I am not pefect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you mean to apply brake instead of  accelerate, Here are the results for brake 1. alive Here are the results for accelerate 1. dead. 2.
I'm feeling lucky.
Select your option.
And yes I know I typed anser instead of answer.
It is because I am not pefect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391272</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's all FUD, but when it comes to the safety of myself and my family, there are already enough dangers on the road and I'm not going to add even the possibility of another. "It can't happen to me"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... famous last words.</p><p>I'll stick with my Honda, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's all FUD , but when it comes to the safety of myself and my family , there are already enough dangers on the road and I 'm not going to add even the possibility of another .
" It ca n't happen to me " ... famous last words.I 'll stick with my Honda , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's all FUD, but when it comes to the safety of myself and my family, there are already enough dangers on the road and I'm not going to add even the possibility of another.
"It can't happen to me" ... famous last words.I'll stick with my Honda, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680</id>
	<title>Software has no business</title>
	<author>n6kuy</author>
	<datestamp>1267982400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... being in control of braking and acceleration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... being in control of braking and acceleration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... being in control of braking and acceleration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391980</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't RTFA, of course, but I believe the quote is referring to people claiming that they had their foot on the brake and still could not stop.  This is a completely different scenario than yours, where you had your foot on the brake and <i>did</i> stop.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA , of course , but I believe the quote is referring to people claiming that they had their foot on the brake and still could not stop .
This is a completely different scenario than yours , where you had your foot on the brake and did stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA, of course, but I believe the quote is referring to people claiming that they had their foot on the brake and still could not stop.
This is a completely different scenario than yours, where you had your foot on the brake and did stop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391386</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1267986300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I've owned my car. Each time, I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign, put my foot on the brake, and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage.</p></div></blockquote><p>I experienced a vehicle accelerating out of control in a late 90s Dodge Caravan. I had just gotten on to the highway and set the cruise control when the car started to accelerate. The floor mats were not on the pedal. Disengaging the cruise control had no effect. The car continued to accelerate.</p><p>I had to put both feet on the brake pedal and pull up on the steering wheel to slow down until I could get to an off ramp. I threw the car in neutral and turned the engine off. When I started it back up it was fine, and it never did it again, but I never used the cruise control in that vehicle again.</p><p>I don't think it was a mechanical linkage problem, as the vehicle was going at a steady speed when I engaged the cruise (I didn't engage it and then use it to accelerate). I think it was most likely the cruise control system, and to this day I'm hesitant to use one.</p><p>I think this type of thing probably happens more than we hear about, and it's not limited to any one manufacturer. As the guy who wrote the article said, cars are complex machines, with over 20,000 parts, and anticipating every possible failure is impossible.</p><p>But I also agree people are notoriously unreliable as witnesses, and agree a lot of incidents are more likely caused by the driver's own actions. I don't think that was the case with the incident I experienced, but being the only person there at the time, who's to say? I said earlier I didn't set my speed with the cruise control, but then I went through a few minutes of intense pressure as I tried to keep the vehicle under control until I could get it safely off the highway.</p><p>I'm sure there's a good chance I could get a detail like that wrong, which would greatly diminish the value of my anecdotal evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I 've owned my car .
Each time , I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign , put my foot on the brake , and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage.I experienced a vehicle accelerating out of control in a late 90s Dodge Caravan .
I had just gotten on to the highway and set the cruise control when the car started to accelerate .
The floor mats were not on the pedal .
Disengaging the cruise control had no effect .
The car continued to accelerate.I had to put both feet on the brake pedal and pull up on the steering wheel to slow down until I could get to an off ramp .
I threw the car in neutral and turned the engine off .
When I started it back up it was fine , and it never did it again , but I never used the cruise control in that vehicle again.I do n't think it was a mechanical linkage problem , as the vehicle was going at a steady speed when I engaged the cruise ( I did n't engage it and then use it to accelerate ) .
I think it was most likely the cruise control system , and to this day I 'm hesitant to use one.I think this type of thing probably happens more than we hear about , and it 's not limited to any one manufacturer .
As the guy who wrote the article said , cars are complex machines , with over 20,000 parts , and anticipating every possible failure is impossible.But I also agree people are notoriously unreliable as witnesses , and agree a lot of incidents are more likely caused by the driver 's own actions .
I do n't think that was the case with the incident I experienced , but being the only person there at the time , who 's to say ?
I said earlier I did n't set my speed with the cruise control , but then I went through a few minutes of intense pressure as I tried to keep the vehicle under control until I could get it safely off the highway.I 'm sure there 's a good chance I could get a detail like that wrong , which would greatly diminish the value of my anecdotal evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've experienced it three times in the 6 months or so that I've owned my car.
Each time, I was headed up a hill towards a stop sign, put my foot on the brake, and there was nothing there- I had to push so hard I was pulling against the steering wheel for leverage.I experienced a vehicle accelerating out of control in a late 90s Dodge Caravan.
I had just gotten on to the highway and set the cruise control when the car started to accelerate.
The floor mats were not on the pedal.
Disengaging the cruise control had no effect.
The car continued to accelerate.I had to put both feet on the brake pedal and pull up on the steering wheel to slow down until I could get to an off ramp.
I threw the car in neutral and turned the engine off.
When I started it back up it was fine, and it never did it again, but I never used the cruise control in that vehicle again.I don't think it was a mechanical linkage problem, as the vehicle was going at a steady speed when I engaged the cruise (I didn't engage it and then use it to accelerate).
I think it was most likely the cruise control system, and to this day I'm hesitant to use one.I think this type of thing probably happens more than we hear about, and it's not limited to any one manufacturer.
As the guy who wrote the article said, cars are complex machines, with over 20,000 parts, and anticipating every possible failure is impossible.But I also agree people are notoriously unreliable as witnesses, and agree a lot of incidents are more likely caused by the driver's own actions.
I don't think that was the case with the incident I experienced, but being the only person there at the time, who's to say?
I said earlier I didn't set my speed with the cruise control, but then I went through a few minutes of intense pressure as I tried to keep the vehicle under control until I could get it safely off the highway.I'm sure there's a good chance I could get a detail like that wrong, which would greatly diminish the value of my anecdotal evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390702</id>
	<title>Can't be verified as safe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they have created a system by which cars with problems that threaten the lives of those within the vehicle and those in the vicinity of the vehicle but cannot be tested or verified adequately?</p><p>That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe.  After all, do we expect less from other safety committees and boards?  The FDA?  The FAA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they have created a system by which cars with problems that threaten the lives of those within the vehicle and those in the vicinity of the vehicle but can not be tested or verified adequately ? That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe .
After all , do we expect less from other safety committees and boards ?
The FDA ?
The FAA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they have created a system by which cars with problems that threaten the lives of those within the vehicle and those in the vicinity of the vehicle but cannot be tested or verified adequately?That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe.
After all, do we expect less from other safety committees and boards?
The FDA?
The FAA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396640</id>
	<title>Nothing surprises me anymore.</title>
	<author>sr8outtalotech</author>
	<datestamp>1267976700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with Toyota on this. How do they know if someone hit the wrong pedal or there was a software glitch. How many people are killed/injured a year because of people having senior moments? The DMV test in CA is a joke, they don't test you on the freeway/highway or check to see if you can navigate a country road at the speed limit without blowing the double yellow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with Toyota on this .
How do they know if someone hit the wrong pedal or there was a software glitch .
How many people are killed/injured a year because of people having senior moments ?
The DMV test in CA is a joke , they do n't test you on the freeway/highway or check to see if you can navigate a country road at the speed limit without blowing the double yellow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with Toyota on this.
How do they know if someone hit the wrong pedal or there was a software glitch.
How many people are killed/injured a year because of people having senior moments?
The DMV test in CA is a joke, they don't test you on the freeway/highway or check to see if you can navigate a country road at the speed limit without blowing the double yellow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390752</id>
	<title>Halting</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1267982880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.</p></div><p>Looks like Toyota's suffering from a halting problem.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.Looks like Toyota 's suffering from a halting problem .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.Looks like Toyota's suffering from a halting problem.
;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392928</id>
	<title>Why so long to address safety issues</title>
	<author>sfm</author>
	<datestamp>1267994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I can sympathize with the general comment that witnesses are inaccurate, if Toyota acceleration problems are reported 10 times as often as those from other manufacturers, there is something worth investigating.  Be it software, floor mats, bad springs, poor pedal placement or whatever, there is enough evidence that some kind of problem exists.  I am disappointed it has taken Toyota so long to address these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can sympathize with the general comment that witnesses are inaccurate , if Toyota acceleration problems are reported 10 times as often as those from other manufacturers , there is something worth investigating .
Be it software , floor mats , bad springs , poor pedal placement or whatever , there is enough evidence that some kind of problem exists .
I am disappointed it has taken Toyota so long to address these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can sympathize with the general comment that witnesses are inaccurate, if Toyota acceleration problems are reported 10 times as often as those from other manufacturers, there is something worth investigating.
Be it software, floor mats, bad springs, poor pedal placement or whatever, there is enough evidence that some kind of problem exists.
I am disappointed it has taken Toyota so long to address these issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395502</id>
	<title>Toyota's Software Designers Should Read This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-to-construct-100-bug-free-software.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">How to Construct 100\% Bug-Free Software</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How to Construct 100 \ % Bug-Free Software [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to Construct 100\% Bug-Free Software [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390494</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1267981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, Halting Problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , Halting Problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, Halting Problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are saying there's absolutely bug-free software?<br>That is akin to saying perfection can be achieved. That truth can be absolute.<br>Those words, are essentially against science. They sound like the thoughts of a delusional, religious person.</p><p>There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security. 0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually (And we are having our doubts about it already). c seems to be the upper limit for information transmission<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (And yes, most of us consider that we'll find a workaround, eventually).</p><p>So, you are saying we can absolutely debug that code? No way.</p><p>What we can believe in are thresholds. All we can expect is to set a threshold of fair enough security, and live with that. The most likely problem here is that this companies don't hire real programmers. They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry. None of this guys have any idea of how the underlying code actually works. And the amount of code generated is so huge that reviewing it by hand would require an impressive workforce.</p><p>So, they will just continue to patch the issue with a little voodoo.</p><p>When the developing strategies of the vb,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, java and other stupidities of our industry gets out and are applied to critical systems, we should start to worry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are saying there 's absolutely bug-free software ? That is akin to saying perfection can be achieved .
That truth can be absolute.Those words , are essentially against science .
They sound like the thoughts of a delusional , religious person.There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security .
0K is considered the absolute zero , but It 'll probably be challenged eventually ( And we are having our doubts about it already ) .
c seems to be the upper limit for information transmission ... unless ... ( And yes , most of us consider that we 'll find a workaround , eventually ) .So , you are saying we can absolutely debug that code ?
No way.What we can believe in are thresholds .
All we can expect is to set a threshold of fair enough security , and live with that .
The most likely problem here is that this companies do n't hire real programmers .
They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry .
None of this guys have any idea of how the underlying code actually works .
And the amount of code generated is so huge that reviewing it by hand would require an impressive workforce.So , they will just continue to patch the issue with a little voodoo.When the developing strategies of the vb , .net , java and other stupidities of our industry gets out and are applied to critical systems , we should start to worry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are saying there's absolutely bug-free software?That is akin to saying perfection can be achieved.
That truth can be absolute.Those words, are essentially against science.
They sound like the thoughts of a delusional, religious person.There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute security.
0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually (And we are having our doubts about it already).
c seems to be the upper limit for information transmission ... unless ... (And yes, most of us consider that we'll find a workaround, eventually).So, you are saying we can absolutely debug that code?
No way.What we can believe in are thresholds.
All we can expect is to set a threshold of fair enough security, and live with that.
The most likely problem here is that this companies don't hire real programmers.
They hire engineers that visually design their systems on crappy applications that are sadly used by the whole industry.
None of this guys have any idea of how the underlying code actually works.
And the amount of code generated is so huge that reviewing it by hand would require an impressive workforce.So, they will just continue to patch the issue with a little voodoo.When the developing strategies of the vb, .net, java and other stupidities of our industry gets out and are applied to critical systems, we should start to worry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390542</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1267981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If possible means getting an answer before the heat death of the universe you are probably wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If possible means getting an answer before the heat death of the universe you are probably wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If possible means getting an answer before the heat death of the universe you are probably wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394768</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>jyx</author>
	<datestamp>1267963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, you are saying there's absolutely bug-free software?</p></div><p>sure the is, here's one I prepared earlier:</p><p>10 REM HELLO WORLD PROGRAM<br>20 PRONT "HELLO WORLD"<br>30 END</p><p>See, the trick is to start out with a small piece of bug free software. Then, you just keep adding small bug free sections to it.</p><p>Its the same principle as staying underwater for ever: You can hold your breath for 5 seconds, but you cant hold your breath for a minute, so instead, just hold your breath for 5 seconds 12 times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are saying there 's absolutely bug-free software ? sure the is , here 's one I prepared earlier : 10 REM HELLO WORLD PROGRAM20 PRONT " HELLO WORLD " 30 ENDSee , the trick is to start out with a small piece of bug free software .
Then , you just keep adding small bug free sections to it.Its the same principle as staying underwater for ever : You can hold your breath for 5 seconds , but you cant hold your breath for a minute , so instead , just hold your breath for 5 seconds 12 times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are saying there's absolutely bug-free software?sure the is, here's one I prepared earlier:10 REM HELLO WORLD PROGRAM20 PRONT "HELLO WORLD"30 ENDSee, the trick is to start out with a small piece of bug free software.
Then, you just keep adding small bug free sections to it.Its the same principle as staying underwater for ever: You can hold your breath for 5 seconds, but you cant hold your breath for a minute, so instead, just hold your breath for 5 seconds 12 times.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394708</id>
	<title>what about those "shims"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so is the consensus about those shims are that they were red herrings?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt...</p></div><p>you just know  those under-appreciated psych majors would have the answers to all the world's tech problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so is the consensus about those shims are that they were red herrings ? former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt...you just know those under-appreciated psych majors would have the answers to all the world 's tech problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so is the consensus about those shims are that they were red herrings?former UCLA psychology professor Richard Schmidt...you just know  those under-appreciated psych majors would have the answers to all the world's tech problems.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392290</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this? It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA. In short, why, in a country where states are going bankrupt, privacy is an illusion, healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama, rampant spending and tax increases. In short, why do I care about this? File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it. Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering, with stock in competitor's companies and large problems they haven't solved wasting their time with this crap.</p></div><p>This isn't even the worst of things Congress has become involved in. Let's not forget a couple years ago while the economy was taking a nose dive that Congress was holding hearings about steroids in baseball and whether or not to prosecute baseball players for contempt of Congress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ?
It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota 's competitors in the USA .
In short , why , in a country where states are going bankrupt , privacy is an illusion , healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama , rampant spending and tax increases .
In short , why do I care about this ?
File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it .
Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering , with stock in competitor 's companies and large problems they have n't solved wasting their time with this crap.This is n't even the worst of things Congress has become involved in .
Let 's not forget a couple years ago while the economy was taking a nose dive that Congress was holding hearings about steroids in baseball and whether or not to prosecute baseball players for contempt of Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?
It becomes even more worrying when you realize that the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA.
In short, why, in a country where states are going bankrupt, privacy is an illusion, healthcare reform has boiled down to if you are pro or anti Obama, rampant spending and tax increases.
In short, why do I care about this?
File a class action lawsuit and let the courts settle it.
Nothing is worse then a bunch of politicians knowing nothing about engineering, with stock in competitor's companies and large problems they haven't solved wasting their time with this crap.This isn't even the worst of things Congress has become involved in.
Let's not forget a couple years ago while the economy was taking a nose dive that Congress was holding hearings about steroids in baseball and whether or not to prosecute baseball players for contempt of Congress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391186</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1267985100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, dear, dear, dear. Have you evern \_looked\_ at the details of the TCP protocol, or how and why RAID works? It's only in a non-existent universe with point sources, frictionless bearings, and perfectly spherical fields that such mathematical precision is completely reliable. Even then, the 3-body problem has \_not been solved\_, nor is the Schrodinger equation easily solved for even the smallest circuits.</p><p>So in the real world, "butterfly effects" of small, difficult to predict and model events can cascade into profound changes in quite large-scale systems. Digitization can help, by driving most such effects below the necessary thresholds to turn a bit "on" or "off", but it's not perfect. And mathematical models of mechanical systems are profoundly \_not\_ perfect: the actual shape of a piece of metal after manufacture, and especially after changes are made after the original design for expense or other manufacturing reasons, can profoundly change the behavior of the real system produced.</p><p>Even with software, unless people can follow the code end-to-end, it's prone to surprising errors. Rounding errors, for example, can creep in. Values that are not tested for because one computer scientist read the API one way, and the other read it another way, are rife, and can be be very difficult to avoid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , dear , dear , dear .
Have you evern \ _looked \ _ at the details of the TCP protocol , or how and why RAID works ?
It 's only in a non-existent universe with point sources , frictionless bearings , and perfectly spherical fields that such mathematical precision is completely reliable .
Even then , the 3-body problem has \ _not been solved \ _ , nor is the Schrodinger equation easily solved for even the smallest circuits.So in the real world , " butterfly effects " of small , difficult to predict and model events can cascade into profound changes in quite large-scale systems .
Digitization can help , by driving most such effects below the necessary thresholds to turn a bit " on " or " off " , but it 's not perfect .
And mathematical models of mechanical systems are profoundly \ _not \ _ perfect : the actual shape of a piece of metal after manufacture , and especially after changes are made after the original design for expense or other manufacturing reasons , can profoundly change the behavior of the real system produced.Even with software , unless people can follow the code end-to-end , it 's prone to surprising errors .
Rounding errors , for example , can creep in .
Values that are not tested for because one computer scientist read the API one way , and the other read it another way , are rife , and can be be very difficult to avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, dear, dear, dear.
Have you evern \_looked\_ at the details of the TCP protocol, or how and why RAID works?
It's only in a non-existent universe with point sources, frictionless bearings, and perfectly spherical fields that such mathematical precision is completely reliable.
Even then, the 3-body problem has \_not been solved\_, nor is the Schrodinger equation easily solved for even the smallest circuits.So in the real world, "butterfly effects" of small, difficult to predict and model events can cascade into profound changes in quite large-scale systems.
Digitization can help, by driving most such effects below the necessary thresholds to turn a bit "on" or "off", but it's not perfect.
And mathematical models of mechanical systems are profoundly \_not\_ perfect: the actual shape of a piece of metal after manufacture, and especially after changes are made after the original design for expense or other manufacturing reasons, can profoundly change the behavior of the real system produced.Even with software, unless people can follow the code end-to-end, it's prone to surprising errors.
Rounding errors, for example, can creep in.
Values that are not tested for because one computer scientist read the API one way, and the other read it another way, are rife, and can be be very difficult to avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391194</id>
	<title>Re:V&amp;V</title>
	<author>HellYeahAutomaton</author>
	<datestamp>1267985100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I'm not underestimating the complexity. I'm calling them out for trivializing the existence of V&amp;V and then implying there is basically nothing they could have done about it.</p><p>Spacecraft have a higher rate of failure (space shuttle 1 in 65, or J2 rocket based engines 1 in 300) , they are also not as prone to collisions with other similarly designed vehicles.</p><p>&gt;The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.</p><p>This is precisely why you need complete code coverage, and need to test all possible code paths. I am not saying that it is easy, and it may be quite expensive, but when lives are on the line, thats the price to pay as a cost for being in business. TCO and SDLC are expensive.</p><p>Both Toyota and NHTSB are on the hook for being responsible parties that should have caught this and are shirking their responsibility by implying that it is intractable.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not underestimating the complexity .
I 'm calling them out for trivializing the existence of V&amp;V and then implying there is basically nothing they could have done about it.Spacecraft have a higher rate of failure ( space shuttle 1 in 65 , or J2 rocket based engines 1 in 300 ) , they are also not as prone to collisions with other similarly designed vehicles. &gt; The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you do n't account for , and that means the possibility of failure.This is precisely why you need complete code coverage , and need to test all possible code paths .
I am not saying that it is easy , and it may be quite expensive , but when lives are on the line , thats the price to pay as a cost for being in business .
TCO and SDLC are expensive.Both Toyota and NHTSB are on the hook for being responsible parties that should have caught this and are shirking their responsibility by implying that it is intractable .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm not underestimating the complexity.
I'm calling them out for trivializing the existence of V&amp;V and then implying there is basically nothing they could have done about it.Spacecraft have a higher rate of failure (space shuttle 1 in 65, or J2 rocket based engines 1 in 300) , they are also not as prone to collisions with other similarly designed vehicles.&gt;The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.This is precisely why you need complete code coverage, and need to test all possible code paths.
I am not saying that it is easy, and it may be quite expensive, but when lives are on the line, thats the price to pay as a cost for being in business.
TCO and SDLC are expensive.Both Toyota and NHTSB are on the hook for being responsible parties that should have caught this and are shirking their responsibility by implying that it is intractable.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390818</id>
	<title>Re:"An event to challenge Evidence"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Found the original Gilbert testimony - a very interesting 5 page read: <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press\_111/20100223/Gilbert.Testimony.pdf" title="house.gov" rel="nofollow">http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press\_111/20100223/Gilbert.Testimony.pdf</a> [house.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Found the original Gilbert testimony - a very interesting 5 page read : http : //energycommerce.house.gov/Press \ _111/20100223/Gilbert.Testimony.pdf [ house.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found the original Gilbert testimony - a very interesting 5 page read: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press\_111/20100223/Gilbert.Testimony.pdf [house.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394020</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think it odd?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "solutions" are not that great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " solutions " are not that great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "solutions" are not that great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391486</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>ailnlv</author>
	<datestamp>1267986780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? There's a way to test that every single piece of software works OK? Well, if that's the case just create a piece of software that tests if a certain code will stop no matter what its input is and win a turing award.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
There 's a way to test that every single piece of software works OK ?
Well , if that 's the case just create a piece of software that tests if a certain code will stop no matter what its input is and win a turing award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
There's a way to test that every single piece of software works OK?
Well, if that's the case just create a piece of software that tests if a certain code will stop no matter what its input is and win a turing award.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395524</id>
	<title>Re:Software has no business</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267969140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never drive a drive-by-wire car (but I've flown in lots of fly-by-wire planes) but the only problem I've ever had with my brakes was when a hydraulic line burst.</p><p>Non-electronic systems fail too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never drive a drive-by-wire car ( but I 've flown in lots of fly-by-wire planes ) but the only problem I 've ever had with my brakes was when a hydraulic line burst.Non-electronic systems fail too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never drive a drive-by-wire car (but I've flown in lots of fly-by-wire planes) but the only problem I've ever had with my brakes was when a hydraulic line burst.Non-electronic systems fail too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390808</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but you are not correct in the general case.  Within a very constrained problem space, you can have formal, verifiable proofs that are turned into programs, yes.  But in the broader context of Turing-complete programming languages, you deal with the halting problem.  As soon as you add unlimited recursion into the mix, you throw out complete verification.</p><p>Which of these paradigms is more appropriate really depends on the scale of the input space and the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve, and how well you can express the requirements formally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you are not correct in the general case .
Within a very constrained problem space , you can have formal , verifiable proofs that are turned into programs , yes .
But in the broader context of Turing-complete programming languages , you deal with the halting problem .
As soon as you add unlimited recursion into the mix , you throw out complete verification.Which of these paradigms is more appropriate really depends on the scale of the input space and the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve , and how well you can express the requirements formally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you are not correct in the general case.
Within a very constrained problem space, you can have formal, verifiable proofs that are turned into programs, yes.
But in the broader context of Turing-complete programming languages, you deal with the halting problem.
As soon as you add unlimited recursion into the mix, you throw out complete verification.Which of these paradigms is more appropriate really depends on the scale of the input space and the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve, and how well you can express the requirements formally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390966</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was getting my CS degree I took classes on formal methods for proving that your software is correct.  It's not a clear-cut thing.  You have to design your language to be verifiable, you have to restrict things like branching and loops to conform to loop controls that preserve base assumptions, and you essentially have to write your code to be verifiable.  One thing that I can remember off the top of my head that can impact your ability to formally prove anything about your code are side effects - you might be able to prove that when your loop terminates your loop control variable will be equal to zero, but if your language supports side effects you might not be able to formally prove that variables that the proof methodology suggests should be untouched actually have the same values coming out of the loop that they had going in.  You can generate examples on a case-by-case basis, but you can't prove it in the general case because side effects are outside the typical mathematical framework used to do proofs.</p><p>Assuming their software is written in bog-standard C and they didn't use these kinds of methods when designing it (which is a reasonable assumption - few areas actually spend the huge amounts of time and money to code this way) then I doubt they could possibly retrofit a proof methodology back onto the system they've built.  There's an argument to be made that they should have designed it that way in the first place, but that would have cost money.  There's also an argument that they should be using the very expensive redundancy methods that are used to make the code and devices that run airplanes with high safety-critical needs.  But, of course, that would also cost money.  The market ensures that you're going to get the code that is "good enough" to run the car without killing people rather than the code that you might like to have in the car.  External pressure is probably going to end up forcing the auto companies to increase their expectations in what the phrase "good enough" means, but it also will likely mean more expensive testing and coding processes which will mean larger price tags on the cars in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was getting my CS degree I took classes on formal methods for proving that your software is correct .
It 's not a clear-cut thing .
You have to design your language to be verifiable , you have to restrict things like branching and loops to conform to loop controls that preserve base assumptions , and you essentially have to write your code to be verifiable .
One thing that I can remember off the top of my head that can impact your ability to formally prove anything about your code are side effects - you might be able to prove that when your loop terminates your loop control variable will be equal to zero , but if your language supports side effects you might not be able to formally prove that variables that the proof methodology suggests should be untouched actually have the same values coming out of the loop that they had going in .
You can generate examples on a case-by-case basis , but you ca n't prove it in the general case because side effects are outside the typical mathematical framework used to do proofs.Assuming their software is written in bog-standard C and they did n't use these kinds of methods when designing it ( which is a reasonable assumption - few areas actually spend the huge amounts of time and money to code this way ) then I doubt they could possibly retrofit a proof methodology back onto the system they 've built .
There 's an argument to be made that they should have designed it that way in the first place , but that would have cost money .
There 's also an argument that they should be using the very expensive redundancy methods that are used to make the code and devices that run airplanes with high safety-critical needs .
But , of course , that would also cost money .
The market ensures that you 're going to get the code that is " good enough " to run the car without killing people rather than the code that you might like to have in the car .
External pressure is probably going to end up forcing the auto companies to increase their expectations in what the phrase " good enough " means , but it also will likely mean more expensive testing and coding processes which will mean larger price tags on the cars in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was getting my CS degree I took classes on formal methods for proving that your software is correct.
It's not a clear-cut thing.
You have to design your language to be verifiable, you have to restrict things like branching and loops to conform to loop controls that preserve base assumptions, and you essentially have to write your code to be verifiable.
One thing that I can remember off the top of my head that can impact your ability to formally prove anything about your code are side effects - you might be able to prove that when your loop terminates your loop control variable will be equal to zero, but if your language supports side effects you might not be able to formally prove that variables that the proof methodology suggests should be untouched actually have the same values coming out of the loop that they had going in.
You can generate examples on a case-by-case basis, but you can't prove it in the general case because side effects are outside the typical mathematical framework used to do proofs.Assuming their software is written in bog-standard C and they didn't use these kinds of methods when designing it (which is a reasonable assumption - few areas actually spend the huge amounts of time and money to code this way) then I doubt they could possibly retrofit a proof methodology back onto the system they've built.
There's an argument to be made that they should have designed it that way in the first place, but that would have cost money.
There's also an argument that they should be using the very expensive redundancy methods that are used to make the code and devices that run airplanes with high safety-critical needs.
But, of course, that would also cost money.
The market ensures that you're going to get the code that is "good enough" to run the car without killing people rather than the code that you might like to have in the car.
External pressure is probably going to end up forcing the auto companies to increase their expectations in what the phrase "good enough" means, but it also will likely mean more expensive testing and coding processes which will mean larger price tags on the cars in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391362</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1267986120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand Toyota isn't the first to get complaints of brake failure/sudden acceleration, but the concentration of complaints makes it hard to be sure that human error just happens to be more common with certain vehicles (not impossible, if certain vehicles attract the right kind of driver). With the secrecy on the black boxes, I have to give the consumers the benefit of the doubt, as Toyota should have access to the data it needs to prove their case. As much as I agree that rare, unusual reports should be treated with skepticism, when people's lives are at stake you have to give them a fair shake, but Toyota doesn't seem to be doing that.<br> <br>

That said, at the very least Toyota should look into the driver error cases and try to improve safety there. For example, a "big red button" for emergency stops would be impossible to mistake for the accelerator, and could be implemented to circumvent code that could contain a bug causing this whole issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand Toyota is n't the first to get complaints of brake failure/sudden acceleration , but the concentration of complaints makes it hard to be sure that human error just happens to be more common with certain vehicles ( not impossible , if certain vehicles attract the right kind of driver ) .
With the secrecy on the black boxes , I have to give the consumers the benefit of the doubt , as Toyota should have access to the data it needs to prove their case .
As much as I agree that rare , unusual reports should be treated with skepticism , when people 's lives are at stake you have to give them a fair shake , but Toyota does n't seem to be doing that .
That said , at the very least Toyota should look into the driver error cases and try to improve safety there .
For example , a " big red button " for emergency stops would be impossible to mistake for the accelerator , and could be implemented to circumvent code that could contain a bug causing this whole issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand Toyota isn't the first to get complaints of brake failure/sudden acceleration, but the concentration of complaints makes it hard to be sure that human error just happens to be more common with certain vehicles (not impossible, if certain vehicles attract the right kind of driver).
With the secrecy on the black boxes, I have to give the consumers the benefit of the doubt, as Toyota should have access to the data it needs to prove their case.
As much as I agree that rare, unusual reports should be treated with skepticism, when people's lives are at stake you have to give them a fair shake, but Toyota doesn't seem to be doing that.
That said, at the very least Toyota should look into the driver error cases and try to improve safety there.
For example, a "big red button" for emergency stops would be impossible to mistake for the accelerator, and could be implemented to circumvent code that could contain a bug causing this whole issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393690</id>
	<title>ALAN TURING: HOW WRONG, INDEED?</title>
	<author>mosel-saar-ruwer</author>
	<datestamp>1267956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> <b>How wrong can you be?</b> Yes there is. Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions. Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free. Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.</i>
<br><br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting\_problem#Importance\_and\_consequences" title="wikipedia.org">The 1930s just called</a> [wikipedia.org], and they want their Halting Problem back...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How wrong can you be ?
Yes there is .
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions .
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed ( or preferably also proven ) to be error free .
Do n't get me wrong , it would be incredibly cost , labor and time expensive , and require real computer scientists , but it is certainly possible .
The 1930s just called [ wikipedia.org ] , and they want their Halting Problem back.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How wrong can you be?
Yes there is.
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions.
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free.
Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.
The 1930s just called [wikipedia.org], and they want their Halting Problem back...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392124</id>
	<title>Re:Can't be verified as safe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe. After all, do we expect less from other safety committees and boards? The FDA? The FAA?''</p><p>Indeed, we do. The reason is that we \_cannot\_ expect things to be tested and verified as safe. The first reason for that is that the number of possible interactions is infinite, so you can never test them all. You can verify a model, but that transfer completely to the Real World. We can never be CERTAIN that something is safe.</p><p>Secondly, with cars as with many other things, we actually do have certainty, and it's the certainty that they are NOT SAFE. You can get yourself killed with a car, and virtually everybody knows it. So even if it were possible to test and verify them conclusively, there would be no point, because we already know the answer.</p><p>Cars aren't 100\% safe and almost certainly never will be. Water isn't 100\% safe, either. We can debate where to draw the line and say good enough is good enough, but it has to be somewhere before "tested and verified as safe", because we will never get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe .
After all , do we expect less from other safety committees and boards ?
The FDA ?
The FAA ?
''Indeed , we do .
The reason is that we \ _cannot \ _ expect things to be tested and verified as safe .
The first reason for that is that the number of possible interactions is infinite , so you can never test them all .
You can verify a model , but that transfer completely to the Real World .
We can never be CERTAIN that something is safe.Secondly , with cars as with many other things , we actually do have certainty , and it 's the certainty that they are NOT SAFE .
You can get yourself killed with a car , and virtually everybody knows it .
So even if it were possible to test and verify them conclusively , there would be no point , because we already know the answer.Cars are n't 100 \ % safe and almost certainly never will be .
Water is n't 100 \ % safe , either .
We can debate where to draw the line and say good enough is good enough , but it has to be somewhere before " tested and verified as safe " , because we will never get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``That rather sounds like cause to deny further sales of these cars until such time that they can be tested and verified as safe.
After all, do we expect less from other safety committees and boards?
The FDA?
The FAA?
''Indeed, we do.
The reason is that we \_cannot\_ expect things to be tested and verified as safe.
The first reason for that is that the number of possible interactions is infinite, so you can never test them all.
You can verify a model, but that transfer completely to the Real World.
We can never be CERTAIN that something is safe.Secondly, with cars as with many other things, we actually do have certainty, and it's the certainty that they are NOT SAFE.
You can get yourself killed with a car, and virtually everybody knows it.
So even if it were possible to test and verify them conclusively, there would be no point, because we already know the answer.Cars aren't 100\% safe and almost certainly never will be.
Water isn't 100\% safe, either.
We can debate where to draw the line and say good enough is good enough, but it has to be somewhere before "tested and verified as safe", because we will never get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."</p><p>How wrong can you be? Yes there is. Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions. Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free. Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
" How wrong can you be ?
Yes there is .
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions .
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed ( or preferably also proven ) to be error free .
Do n't get me wrong , it would be incredibly cost , labor and time expensive , and require real computer scientists , but it is certainly possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"How wrong can you be?
Yes there is.
Software is fundamentally the composition of many mathematical functions.
Its results can be formally proven if the hardware it is running on is assumed (or preferably also proven) to be error free.
Don't get me wrong, it would be incredibly cost, labor and time expensive, and require real computer scientists, but it is certainly possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407590</id>
	<title>The halting problem</title>
	<author>Eric Green</author>
	<datestamp>1268051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is theoretically provable that there are software problems that cannot be detected algorithmically. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting\_problem" title="wikipedia.org">Halting Problem</a> [wikipedia.org]. This isn't new, boys, this was proven back in 1936 by both Alan Turing and John von Neumann.
<p>
Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/Article/71228/toyota\_recall\_no\_codesno\_problem\_testimony\_\_of\_david\_gilbert.aspx" title="brakeandfrontend.com">David Gilbert's testimony</a> [brakeandfrontend.com] is quite interesting. What it appears to say is that Toyota is failing to detect a boundary condition -- two circuits that are supposed to have a differential output that instead are grounded to each other, but the computer instead accepting them and failing to signal any error -- and that this might be an indication that Toyota has a problem inside their software with detecting error conditions in the throttle circuit. Gilbert did not say that what he discovered is *the* problem causing runaway accelerations, just that it indicated *a* problem. Toyota can try to spin this all they want, but as someone who has an EE+software engineering background, I agree with Gilbert that this seems to indicate that Toyota's throttle control software is not as robust as they claimed and thus cannot be eliminated as a possible cause of the problem. All Toyota is accomplishing with their dog and pony show is making them look like the cigarette companies -- i.e., a bunch of lying b*****ds more concerned about the bottom line than about the health and safety of their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is theoretically provable that there are software problems that can not be detected algorithmically .
See : Halting Problem [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is n't new , boys , this was proven back in 1936 by both Alan Turing and John von Neumann .
Meanwhile , David Gilbert 's testimony [ brakeandfrontend.com ] is quite interesting .
What it appears to say is that Toyota is failing to detect a boundary condition -- two circuits that are supposed to have a differential output that instead are grounded to each other , but the computer instead accepting them and failing to signal any error -- and that this might be an indication that Toyota has a problem inside their software with detecting error conditions in the throttle circuit .
Gilbert did not say that what he discovered is * the * problem causing runaway accelerations , just that it indicated * a * problem .
Toyota can try to spin this all they want , but as someone who has an EE + software engineering background , I agree with Gilbert that this seems to indicate that Toyota 's throttle control software is not as robust as they claimed and thus can not be eliminated as a possible cause of the problem .
All Toyota is accomplishing with their dog and pony show is making them look like the cigarette companies -- i.e. , a bunch of lying b * * * * * ds more concerned about the bottom line than about the health and safety of their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is theoretically provable that there are software problems that cannot be detected algorithmically.
See: Halting Problem [wikipedia.org].
This isn't new, boys, this was proven back in 1936 by both Alan Turing and John von Neumann.
Meanwhile, David Gilbert's testimony [brakeandfrontend.com] is quite interesting.
What it appears to say is that Toyota is failing to detect a boundary condition -- two circuits that are supposed to have a differential output that instead are grounded to each other, but the computer instead accepting them and failing to signal any error -- and that this might be an indication that Toyota has a problem inside their software with detecting error conditions in the throttle circuit.
Gilbert did not say that what he discovered is *the* problem causing runaway accelerations, just that it indicated *a* problem.
Toyota can try to spin this all they want, but as someone who has an EE+software engineering background, I agree with Gilbert that this seems to indicate that Toyota's throttle control software is not as robust as they claimed and thus cannot be eliminated as a possible cause of the problem.
All Toyota is accomplishing with their dog and pony show is making them look like the cigarette companies -- i.e., a bunch of lying b*****ds more concerned about the bottom line than about the health and safety of their customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391754</id>
	<title>Example - car brought to dealer</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1267988100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is an example of a person that brought a car to the dealer while it was pegged - mechanic played with pedal and studied the situation:<br> <br>

http://www.leftlanenews.com/feds-investigate-toyota-electronics-for-unintended-acceleration.html</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an example of a person that brought a car to the dealer while it was pegged - mechanic played with pedal and studied the situation : http : //www.leftlanenews.com/feds-investigate-toyota-electronics-for-unintended-acceleration.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an example of a person that brought a car to the dealer while it was pegged - mechanic played with pedal and studied the situation: 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/feds-investigate-toyota-electronics-for-unintended-acceleration.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397298</id>
	<title>Re:Remove all electroncis from the accelerator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you don't fly anywhere....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you do n't fly anywhere... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you don't fly anywhere....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393792</id>
	<title>Formal Techniques</title>
	<author>Stonefish</author>
	<datestamp>1267957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that this article ignores is that software can be proven correct. The problem is that its expensive, time consuming and most programmers don't understand the techniques. In wikipedia look up Formal verification, if they can develop a provably correct OS then a provable correct braking system is achievable. The fact that programming has evolved into a trade rather than a profession has not improved matters. One thing of note is that Microsoft has employed the developer behind the coyotos operating system and has been throwing money at languages like haskell. How does a stratveegy of forcing carmakers to use a certified developer toolset made by microsoft sound from a business perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that this article ignores is that software can be proven correct .
The problem is that its expensive , time consuming and most programmers do n't understand the techniques .
In wikipedia look up Formal verification , if they can develop a provably correct OS then a provable correct braking system is achievable .
The fact that programming has evolved into a trade rather than a profession has not improved matters .
One thing of note is that Microsoft has employed the developer behind the coyotos operating system and has been throwing money at languages like haskell .
How does a stratveegy of forcing carmakers to use a certified developer toolset made by microsoft sound from a business perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that this article ignores is that software can be proven correct.
The problem is that its expensive, time consuming and most programmers don't understand the techniques.
In wikipedia look up Formal verification, if they can develop a provably correct OS then a provable correct braking system is achievable.
The fact that programming has evolved into a trade rather than a profession has not improved matters.
One thing of note is that Microsoft has employed the developer behind the coyotos operating system and has been throwing money at languages like haskell.
How does a stratveegy of forcing carmakers to use a certified developer toolset made by microsoft sound from a business perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397946</id>
	<title>Re:followup comments</title>
	<author>merreborn</author>
	<datestamp>1267991460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command, put the car in neutral (your engine will be fine, as the engine computer has several "rev limiters" built-in)</p></div></blockquote><p>I had an accelerator cable stick on me in a Dodge Caravan, years ago.  I can't help but to think back to that every time I read how some Toyota owners have ended up in accidents as a result of this issue.  In my experience, it wasn't that hard to address the problem safely.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In my case, the problem was really the result of poor maintenance on my part -- the accelerator cable passes above the battery, and I'd let the battery leak so badly, a mound of crystalized acid built up and was rubbing against the cable.  To make matters worse, I was driving the POS 120 miles a day.</p><p>Finally, one day on the highway, I pressed the gas, let off, and the damn thing kept accelerating.  The cable had stuck.  While I'd imagine downshifting comes naturally if you've driven a manual, I've never driven anything other than an automatic in my life.  Fortunately, my father had taught me to downshift when descending steep grades, rather than ride the breaks.  As a result, I had the presence of mind to downshift, and pull off at the next off-ramp.</p><p>In retrospect, I probably should have immediately brought the thing to a complete stop on the shoulder and had it towed, but I actually managed to navigate several blocks and stop lights shifting between first and neutral.  Parked it at a Chevron that had an attached garage.</p><p>I suppose my purpose in relating this is twofold: first it provides real world confirmation of your advice.  Secondly, I suppose it serves as a reason for anyone teaching someone to drive to also teach them about the concept of "engine breaking".  That extra bit of knowledge probably saved me from ending up in a high speed collision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command , put the car in neutral ( your engine will be fine , as the engine computer has several " rev limiters " built-in ) I had an accelerator cable stick on me in a Dodge Caravan , years ago .
I ca n't help but to think back to that every time I read how some Toyota owners have ended up in accidents as a result of this issue .
In my experience , it was n't that hard to address the problem safely .
    In my case , the problem was really the result of poor maintenance on my part -- the accelerator cable passes above the battery , and I 'd let the battery leak so badly , a mound of crystalized acid built up and was rubbing against the cable .
To make matters worse , I was driving the POS 120 miles a day.Finally , one day on the highway , I pressed the gas , let off , and the damn thing kept accelerating .
The cable had stuck .
While I 'd imagine downshifting comes naturally if you 've driven a manual , I 've never driven anything other than an automatic in my life .
Fortunately , my father had taught me to downshift when descending steep grades , rather than ride the breaks .
As a result , I had the presence of mind to downshift , and pull off at the next off-ramp.In retrospect , I probably should have immediately brought the thing to a complete stop on the shoulder and had it towed , but I actually managed to navigate several blocks and stop lights shifting between first and neutral .
Parked it at a Chevron that had an attached garage.I suppose my purpose in relating this is twofold : first it provides real world confirmation of your advice .
Secondly , I suppose it serves as a reason for anyone teaching someone to drive to also teach them about the concept of " engine breaking " .
That extra bit of knowledge probably saved me from ending up in a high speed collision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you find yourself in a car of any brand where the engine is accelerating without command, put the car in neutral (your engine will be fine, as the engine computer has several "rev limiters" built-in)I had an accelerator cable stick on me in a Dodge Caravan, years ago.
I can't help but to think back to that every time I read how some Toyota owners have ended up in accidents as a result of this issue.
In my experience, it wasn't that hard to address the problem safely.
    In my case, the problem was really the result of poor maintenance on my part -- the accelerator cable passes above the battery, and I'd let the battery leak so badly, a mound of crystalized acid built up and was rubbing against the cable.
To make matters worse, I was driving the POS 120 miles a day.Finally, one day on the highway, I pressed the gas, let off, and the damn thing kept accelerating.
The cable had stuck.
While I'd imagine downshifting comes naturally if you've driven a manual, I've never driven anything other than an automatic in my life.
Fortunately, my father had taught me to downshift when descending steep grades, rather than ride the breaks.
As a result, I had the presence of mind to downshift, and pull off at the next off-ramp.In retrospect, I probably should have immediately brought the thing to a complete stop on the shoulder and had it towed, but I actually managed to navigate several blocks and stop lights shifting between first and neutral.
Parked it at a Chevron that had an attached garage.I suppose my purpose in relating this is twofold: first it provides real world confirmation of your advice.
Secondly, I suppose it serves as a reason for anyone teaching someone to drive to also teach them about the concept of "engine breaking".
That extra bit of knowledge probably saved me from ending up in a high speed collision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396304</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1267974060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the meantime, I'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.</p></div><p>Good luck with that. From what I've heard, that may not do anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime , I 'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.Good luck with that .
From what I 've heard , that may not do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meantime, I'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.Good luck with that.
From what I've heard, that may not do anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394942</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course Toyota is right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Tell it to the California Highway Patrol officer who got killed, along with four members of his family, in a well-publicized crash (along with 911 phone call) that started all of this stuff hitting the fan. He was a very experienced officer, he's been trained for high-speed chases and he surely knew how to use brakes or how to put vehicle in neutral. And he didn't panic, either, he was trying until the last moment. You can't blame him for not being able to stop his Lexus; and if he couldn't do it, with all his training and experience, what chance would you or I have ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Toyota is right .
.Tell it to the California Highway Patrol officer who got killed , along with four members of his family , in a well-publicized crash ( along with 911 phone call ) that started all of this stuff hitting the fan .
He was a very experienced officer , he 's been trained for high-speed chases and he surely knew how to use brakes or how to put vehicle in neutral .
And he did n't panic , either , he was trying until the last moment .
You ca n't blame him for not being able to stop his Lexus ; and if he could n't do it , with all his training and experience , what chance would you or I have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Toyota is right.
.Tell it to the California Highway Patrol officer who got killed, along with four members of his family, in a well-publicized crash (along with 911 phone call) that started all of this stuff hitting the fan.
He was a very experienced officer, he's been trained for high-speed chases and he surely knew how to use brakes or how to put vehicle in neutral.
And he didn't panic, either, he was trying until the last moment.
You can't blame him for not being able to stop his Lexus; and if he couldn't do it, with all his training and experience, what chance would you or I have ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392334</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267991040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you prefer Congress look into this, or steroid use in baseball? Believe me, this is *good* as far as Congressional investigations go-- they're usually unbelievably petty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you prefer Congress look into this , or steroid use in baseball ?
Believe me , this is * good * as far as Congressional investigations go-- they 're usually unbelievably petty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you prefer Congress look into this, or steroid use in baseball?
Believe me, this is *good* as far as Congressional investigations go-- they're usually unbelievably petty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393136</id>
	<title>Cars have brakes</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Car&amp;Driver did <a href="http://forums.motortrend.com/70/8007011/the-general-forum/c-d-toyota-dealing-with-unintended-acceleration-te/index.html" title="motortrend.com">some tests</a> [motortrend.com] and found that even with the throttle wide open the brakes can still stop a car, even a 500hp muscle car. With a normal car the distance wasn't even significantly greater than with closed throttle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Car&amp;Driver did some tests [ motortrend.com ] and found that even with the throttle wide open the brakes can still stop a car , even a 500hp muscle car .
With a normal car the distance was n't even significantly greater than with closed throttle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Car&amp;Driver did some tests [motortrend.com] and found that even with the throttle wide open the brakes can still stop a car, even a 500hp muscle car.
With a normal car the distance wasn't even significantly greater than with closed throttle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396518</id>
	<title>Re:Shift to neutral.</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1267975680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, I've had a hood come unlatched at highway speeds, dealt with it, had a fuel line come undone (spraying fuel all over the engine compartment as the car decelerated from highway speeds), and encountered (twice) people changing their tire in a 55mph travel lane.  My wife had her brakes fail years ago, considered her options (intersection full of cars was one of them) and intentionally drove it into the side of a building to stop.  Had a couple of DOZEN cats dash out in front of me once, I (sadly) coped.  Stuff happens, you are not supposed to freak.  Brake before the curve, steer into the skid, tap your brakes a lot if you don't have ABS.  And if you don't like what you see (or can't see), your first choice is the brake pedal; speed usually makes bad stuff worse.
<br> <br>
And every year when it snows, I go skidding in a parking lot, and back when ABS was a novelty (still don't have it on my car), when I'd rent a car with ABS, I would go try it out to see what it was like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , I 've had a hood come unlatched at highway speeds , dealt with it , had a fuel line come undone ( spraying fuel all over the engine compartment as the car decelerated from highway speeds ) , and encountered ( twice ) people changing their tire in a 55mph travel lane .
My wife had her brakes fail years ago , considered her options ( intersection full of cars was one of them ) and intentionally drove it into the side of a building to stop .
Had a couple of DOZEN cats dash out in front of me once , I ( sadly ) coped .
Stuff happens , you are not supposed to freak .
Brake before the curve , steer into the skid , tap your brakes a lot if you do n't have ABS .
And if you do n't like what you see ( or ca n't see ) , your first choice is the brake pedal ; speed usually makes bad stuff worse .
And every year when it snows , I go skidding in a parking lot , and back when ABS was a novelty ( still do n't have it on my car ) , when I 'd rent a car with ABS , I would go try it out to see what it was like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, I've had a hood come unlatched at highway speeds, dealt with it, had a fuel line come undone (spraying fuel all over the engine compartment as the car decelerated from highway speeds), and encountered (twice) people changing their tire in a 55mph travel lane.
My wife had her brakes fail years ago, considered her options (intersection full of cars was one of them) and intentionally drove it into the side of a building to stop.
Had a couple of DOZEN cats dash out in front of me once, I (sadly) coped.
Stuff happens, you are not supposed to freak.
Brake before the curve, steer into the skid, tap your brakes a lot if you don't have ABS.
And if you don't like what you see (or can't see), your first choice is the brake pedal; speed usually makes bad stuff worse.
And every year when it snows, I go skidding in a parking lot, and back when ABS was a novelty (still don't have it on my car), when I'd rent a car with ABS, I would go try it out to see what it was like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391570</id>
	<title>Absolutely Impossible to Verify!!!</title>
	<author>BoRegardless</author>
	<datestamp>1267987200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opinions on verifying code as a means to tell whether a Toyota will have 'sudden acceleration' above are UTTERLY, well, let us say, ill thought out in my opinion, in most cases.  Code is only ONE part of an almost hopelessly complex system when ALL THE POSSIBLE VARIABLES are analyzed.</p><p>Failure analysis may start with code, but these systems then can encounter intermittent connections, power surges, static generated by multiple known and unknown items (including the rare intermittent connections), induced currents in parallel wires, temperature induced changes, faulty seals &amp; water/condensation intrusion, etc.  By the time an accident investigator looks at a vehicle that had a problem, the transients are long gone.</p><p>Intermittent Mechanical (&amp; thus often electrical) changes &amp; failures are an absolute bane of complex systems.</p><p>In my opinion, the only way you can find these rare transient problems is to find vehicles who have been reported to have these problems (&amp; didn't crash) and then you load them up with data loggers and drive the hell out of them in all sorts of environments.</p><p>Personally, I really like a 1972 Blazer...with a manual transmission.  Minimal plastic, no electronics beyond the turn signal module, fix it myself and I can start it with a bit of a downhill run.  Yup, I drive my Highlander, but I'm thinking of putting a 72 Blazer back in as new shape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opinions on verifying code as a means to tell whether a Toyota will have 'sudden acceleration ' above are UTTERLY , well , let us say , ill thought out in my opinion , in most cases .
Code is only ONE part of an almost hopelessly complex system when ALL THE POSSIBLE VARIABLES are analyzed.Failure analysis may start with code , but these systems then can encounter intermittent connections , power surges , static generated by multiple known and unknown items ( including the rare intermittent connections ) , induced currents in parallel wires , temperature induced changes , faulty seals &amp; water/condensation intrusion , etc .
By the time an accident investigator looks at a vehicle that had a problem , the transients are long gone.Intermittent Mechanical ( &amp; thus often electrical ) changes &amp; failures are an absolute bane of complex systems.In my opinion , the only way you can find these rare transient problems is to find vehicles who have been reported to have these problems ( &amp; did n't crash ) and then you load them up with data loggers and drive the hell out of them in all sorts of environments.Personally , I really like a 1972 Blazer...with a manual transmission .
Minimal plastic , no electronics beyond the turn signal module , fix it myself and I can start it with a bit of a downhill run .
Yup , I drive my Highlander , but I 'm thinking of putting a 72 Blazer back in as new shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opinions on verifying code as a means to tell whether a Toyota will have 'sudden acceleration' above are UTTERLY, well, let us say, ill thought out in my opinion, in most cases.
Code is only ONE part of an almost hopelessly complex system when ALL THE POSSIBLE VARIABLES are analyzed.Failure analysis may start with code, but these systems then can encounter intermittent connections, power surges, static generated by multiple known and unknown items (including the rare intermittent connections), induced currents in parallel wires, temperature induced changes, faulty seals &amp; water/condensation intrusion, etc.
By the time an accident investigator looks at a vehicle that had a problem, the transients are long gone.Intermittent Mechanical (&amp; thus often electrical) changes &amp; failures are an absolute bane of complex systems.In my opinion, the only way you can find these rare transient problems is to find vehicles who have been reported to have these problems (&amp; didn't crash) and then you load them up with data loggers and drive the hell out of them in all sorts of environments.Personally, I really like a 1972 Blazer...with a manual transmission.
Minimal plastic, no electronics beyond the turn signal module, fix it myself and I can start it with a bit of a downhill run.
Yup, I drive my Highlander, but I'm thinking of putting a 72 Blazer back in as new shape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395002</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267965240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PERHAPS it is possible. It is certainly not practical. By the time the analysis was complete, the car and the chips the system runs on would both be antiques.</p><p>I say PERHAPS. If the code is sufficiently complex and inter-dependent then the analysis time will exceed the lifetime of the analyst, necessitating that the entire state of the analysis be conveyed to a younger colleague periodically. If that state takes more than a lifetime to receive and then convey to another, it is actually impossible rather than merely impractical.</p><p>Rather than going through all of that with a group of people who've never even written 'hello world' in BASIC, he just cut to the point and said it's impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PERHAPS it is possible .
It is certainly not practical .
By the time the analysis was complete , the car and the chips the system runs on would both be antiques.I say PERHAPS .
If the code is sufficiently complex and inter-dependent then the analysis time will exceed the lifetime of the analyst , necessitating that the entire state of the analysis be conveyed to a younger colleague periodically .
If that state takes more than a lifetime to receive and then convey to another , it is actually impossible rather than merely impractical.Rather than going through all of that with a group of people who 've never even written 'hello world ' in BASIC , he just cut to the point and said it 's impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PERHAPS it is possible.
It is certainly not practical.
By the time the analysis was complete, the car and the chips the system runs on would both be antiques.I say PERHAPS.
If the code is sufficiently complex and inter-dependent then the analysis time will exceed the lifetime of the analyst, necessitating that the entire state of the analysis be conveyed to a younger colleague periodically.
If that state takes more than a lifetime to receive and then convey to another, it is actually impossible rather than merely impractical.Rather than going through all of that with a group of people who've never even written 'hello world' in BASIC, he just cut to the point and said it's impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884</id>
	<title>here is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less than 100 cars out of 8,000,000 have had this problem. That is a 0.001\% failure rate.</p><p>Of those 0.001\% of cars that had the problem, how many times did someone drive them before they failed?</p><p>I don't want to say this is user error, but I have seen some users do stupid stuff and not even know they did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than 100 cars out of 8,000,000 have had this problem .
That is a 0.001 \ % failure rate.Of those 0.001 \ % of cars that had the problem , how many times did someone drive them before they failed ? I do n't want to say this is user error , but I have seen some users do stupid stuff and not even know they did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than 100 cars out of 8,000,000 have had this problem.
That is a 0.001\% failure rate.Of those 0.001\% of cars that had the problem, how many times did someone drive them before they failed?I don't want to say this is user error, but I have seen some users do stupid stuff and not even know they did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391028</id>
	<title>Re:Software has no business</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267984260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about fuel air mix? there is software in there to get the best out of fuel efficiency.  What about cruise control?  there is software that monitors the current speed and adjusts the fuel flow automatically.</p><p>if you want a gas guzzlling, monster car with linkages that have a habit of wearing out, then go by a car form the 50's  personally today's cars are far safer than anything from back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about fuel air mix ?
there is software in there to get the best out of fuel efficiency .
What about cruise control ?
there is software that monitors the current speed and adjusts the fuel flow automatically.if you want a gas guzzlling , monster car with linkages that have a habit of wearing out , then go by a car form the 50 's personally today 's cars are far safer than anything from back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about fuel air mix?
there is software in there to get the best out of fuel efficiency.
What about cruise control?
there is software that monitors the current speed and adjusts the fuel flow automatically.if you want a gas guzzlling, monster car with linkages that have a habit of wearing out, then go by a car form the 50's  personally today's cars are far safer than anything from back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393054</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?</p></div><p>1: Because Toyota @#'ed its regulators, and is either malicious or incompetent.  The responsive part of the federal government (Congress) is entertaining modifying the regulations, to ensure this doesn't happen with anyone else.  (Did YOU know that most cars have a black-box, but Toyota uses a proprietary system that only they can access?)</p><p>2: Because there's no real difference between the government of Japan and the business of Japan.  JAPAN should be the one hauling their executives before a committee.. but they're too "pro-business" to do that over such a small thing as "unintended acceleration."</p><p>3: Because it's an Election Year.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USA</p></div><p>The fed has a controlling interest in TWO car companies, and it's the most passive owner either have ever had.  Ford, Kia, Honda, and Hyndai are all, well, NOT owned in whole or in part by the federal government.</p><p>Oh, and while I don't own a Toyota (and after this, never will), I care because, well, I live in the United States, and drive on the US highways.  You know, where the toyotas are randomly accelerating and crashing into other cars and houses and things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ? 1 : Because Toyota @ # 'ed its regulators , and is either malicious or incompetent .
The responsive part of the federal government ( Congress ) is entertaining modifying the regulations , to ensure this does n't happen with anyone else .
( Did YOU know that most cars have a black-box , but Toyota uses a proprietary system that only they can access ?
) 2 : Because there 's no real difference between the government of Japan and the business of Japan .
JAPAN should be the one hauling their executives before a committee.. but they 're too " pro-business " to do that over such a small thing as " unintended acceleration .
" 3 : Because it 's an Election Year.the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota 's competitors in the USAThe fed has a controlling interest in TWO car companies , and it 's the most passive owner either have ever had .
Ford , Kia , Honda , and Hyndai are all , well , NOT owned in whole or in part by the federal government.Oh , and while I do n't own a Toyota ( and after this , never will ) , I care because , well , I live in the United States , and drive on the US highways .
You know , where the toyotas are randomly accelerating and crashing into other cars and houses and things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?1: Because Toyota @#'ed its regulators, and is either malicious or incompetent.
The responsive part of the federal government (Congress) is entertaining modifying the regulations, to ensure this doesn't happen with anyone else.
(Did YOU know that most cars have a black-box, but Toyota uses a proprietary system that only they can access?
)2: Because there's no real difference between the government of Japan and the business of Japan.
JAPAN should be the one hauling their executives before a committee.. but they're too "pro-business" to do that over such a small thing as "unintended acceleration.
"3: Because it's an Election Year.the US government has a controlling interest in most of Toyota's competitors in the USAThe fed has a controlling interest in TWO car companies, and it's the most passive owner either have ever had.
Ford, Kia, Honda, and Hyndai are all, well, NOT owned in whole or in part by the federal government.Oh, and while I don't own a Toyota (and after this, never will), I care because, well, I live in the United States, and drive on the US highways.
You know, where the toyotas are randomly accelerating and crashing into other cars and houses and things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390356</id>
	<title>"An event to challenge Evidence"</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1267980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence<nobr> <wbr></nobr></i>...</p><p>Macroscopic events generally don't challenge evidence.  They challenge the politics of evidence.</p><p>One challenges evidence with small, discrete, verifiable events.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence ...Macroscopic events generally do n't challenge evidence .
They challenge the politics of evidence.One challenges evidence with small , discrete , verifiable events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Toyota is currently planning an event to challenge evidence ...Macroscopic events generally don't challenge evidence.
They challenge the politics of evidence.One challenges evidence with small, discrete, verifiable events.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391298</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong. The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.'</i></p><p>This was true with Audi in the 80's,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I think the key here was that the brake/gas pedals were not well-designed. Or rather, were designed for a racing technique called, I believe, heel-n-toe shifting. This made it way easier than necessary to accidentally hit the accelerator when you meant to hit the brake. At least that's my understanding of how it worked out in the end. Both sides were essentially wrong: the drivers had in fact hit the gas pedal, but Audi had an easy-to-mess-up design.</p><p>The Toyota problems, to the extent that they were actually due to floor mats getting stuck, would also be poor design. There's no need to have the gas pedal reach close to the floor, where a mat might catch on it. Nor to have the behind-the-pedal mechanisms within reach of a severely-jammed-forward mat, either. Perhaps 30 years ago, when things were mechanical and they needed some leverage, but not today.</p><p>Reminds me of Phineas and Ferb when you hear, "In hindsight, I question the decision to put a self-destruct button on this device in the first place."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the driver says they have their foot on the brake , they are just plain wrong .
The human motor system is not perfect , and it does n't always do what it is told .
'This was true with Audi in the 80 's , ...I think the key here was that the brake/gas pedals were not well-designed .
Or rather , were designed for a racing technique called , I believe , heel-n-toe shifting .
This made it way easier than necessary to accidentally hit the accelerator when you meant to hit the brake .
At least that 's my understanding of how it worked out in the end .
Both sides were essentially wrong : the drivers had in fact hit the gas pedal , but Audi had an easy-to-mess-up design.The Toyota problems , to the extent that they were actually due to floor mats getting stuck , would also be poor design .
There 's no need to have the gas pedal reach close to the floor , where a mat might catch on it .
Nor to have the behind-the-pedal mechanisms within reach of a severely-jammed-forward mat , either .
Perhaps 30 years ago , when things were mechanical and they needed some leverage , but not today.Reminds me of Phineas and Ferb when you hear , " In hindsight , I question the decision to put a self-destruct button on this device in the first place .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When the driver says they have their foot on the brake, they are just plain wrong.
The human motor system is not perfect, and it doesn't always do what it is told.
'This was true with Audi in the 80's, ...I think the key here was that the brake/gas pedals were not well-designed.
Or rather, were designed for a racing technique called, I believe, heel-n-toe shifting.
This made it way easier than necessary to accidentally hit the accelerator when you meant to hit the brake.
At least that's my understanding of how it worked out in the end.
Both sides were essentially wrong: the drivers had in fact hit the gas pedal, but Audi had an easy-to-mess-up design.The Toyota problems, to the extent that they were actually due to floor mats getting stuck, would also be poor design.
There's no need to have the gas pedal reach close to the floor, where a mat might catch on it.
Nor to have the behind-the-pedal mechanisms within reach of a severely-jammed-forward mat, either.
Perhaps 30 years ago, when things were mechanical and they needed some leverage, but not today.Reminds me of Phineas and Ferb when you hear, "In hindsight, I question the decision to put a self-destruct button on this device in the first place.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31408344</id>
	<title>Emergency stops</title>
	<author>KMSelf</author>
	<datestamp>1268056140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tested that capability of my car during the test drive.  Since most cars now offer at least ABS (and some will give traction control), understanding what happens is very helpful.

Level, straight, deserted stretch of road.  Sped up to ~60 MPH.  Stood on the brakes.  Did that in several different vehicles I tried.

More recently I had the opportunity to drive from San Francisco to Chicago for Christmas.  Again, a deserted, level stretch of road, this time:  how does the car handle braking at low speeds (10-20 MPH) in a panic stop on snow and ice?

Familiarize yourself with such behavior, in a safe setting.

Understand how your car handles differently on different surfaces:  dry asphalt, wet roads, sand/gravel, snow/ice.  For my own perspective, sand/gravel are the worst -- they appear without warning, vary greatly in quality, and have a bad habit of jumping up and leaving an impression on your windscreen.  Oh well.

In practice, the main problem with panic stops is the idiot following too closely behind you.  I defend that space vigorously.

NB: most insurance companies will pay completely fix the windshield if damaged as it's a safety hazard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tested that capability of my car during the test drive .
Since most cars now offer at least ABS ( and some will give traction control ) , understanding what happens is very helpful .
Level , straight , deserted stretch of road .
Sped up to ~ 60 MPH .
Stood on the brakes .
Did that in several different vehicles I tried .
More recently I had the opportunity to drive from San Francisco to Chicago for Christmas .
Again , a deserted , level stretch of road , this time : how does the car handle braking at low speeds ( 10-20 MPH ) in a panic stop on snow and ice ?
Familiarize yourself with such behavior , in a safe setting .
Understand how your car handles differently on different surfaces : dry asphalt , wet roads , sand/gravel , snow/ice .
For my own perspective , sand/gravel are the worst -- they appear without warning , vary greatly in quality , and have a bad habit of jumping up and leaving an impression on your windscreen .
Oh well .
In practice , the main problem with panic stops is the idiot following too closely behind you .
I defend that space vigorously .
NB : most insurance companies will pay completely fix the windshield if damaged as it 's a safety hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tested that capability of my car during the test drive.
Since most cars now offer at least ABS (and some will give traction control), understanding what happens is very helpful.
Level, straight, deserted stretch of road.
Sped up to ~60 MPH.
Stood on the brakes.
Did that in several different vehicles I tried.
More recently I had the opportunity to drive from San Francisco to Chicago for Christmas.
Again, a deserted, level stretch of road, this time:  how does the car handle braking at low speeds (10-20 MPH) in a panic stop on snow and ice?
Familiarize yourself with such behavior, in a safe setting.
Understand how your car handles differently on different surfaces:  dry asphalt, wet roads, sand/gravel, snow/ice.
For my own perspective, sand/gravel are the worst -- they appear without warning, vary greatly in quality, and have a bad habit of jumping up and leaving an impression on your windscreen.
Oh well.
In practice, the main problem with panic stops is the idiot following too closely behind you.
I defend that space vigorously.
NB: most insurance companies will pay completely fix the windshield if damaged as it's a safety hazard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395150</id>
	<title>Re:Formal verification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry to say that, but Rizzoni is very focused on car market and has absolutely no clue what goes on, as a matter of daily practice, in aviation, military and rail industries. And there, you actually do use formal verification, theorem provers, and all that jazz, as a matter of daily practice. The car folk are trigger-happy monkeys who take LabView and Simulink diagrams, crank out the code and put that into the actual shipping ECUs. For anyone who knows and understands how that process works (apart from just being able to use it), it's unfathomable that it'd be done that way without much scrutiny...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry to say that , but Rizzoni is very focused on car market and has absolutely no clue what goes on , as a matter of daily practice , in aviation , military and rail industries .
And there , you actually do use formal verification , theorem provers , and all that jazz , as a matter of daily practice .
The car folk are trigger-happy monkeys who take LabView and Simulink diagrams , crank out the code and put that into the actual shipping ECUs .
For anyone who knows and understands how that process works ( apart from just being able to use it ) , it 's unfathomable that it 'd be done that way without much scrutiny.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry to say that, but Rizzoni is very focused on car market and has absolutely no clue what goes on, as a matter of daily practice, in aviation, military and rail industries.
And there, you actually do use formal verification, theorem provers, and all that jazz, as a matter of daily practice.
The car folk are trigger-happy monkeys who take LabView and Simulink diagrams, crank out the code and put that into the actual shipping ECUs.
For anyone who knows and understands how that process works (apart from just being able to use it), it's unfathomable that it'd be done that way without much scrutiny...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392114</id>
	<title>Re:falsely blaming the user</title>
	<author>Kessler</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commercial and military pilots spend hours upon hours training in simulators to handle failure scenarios. Look at all the failure contingency training NASA puts astronauts through. Yet here in the US, any idiot who can pass an eye test and answer a few basic questions about traffic laws can get a license to operate a motor vehicle.</p><p>How many drivers will instinctively reach for the parking brake if the brake pedal fails? How may will reach for neutral if the accelerator sticks? How many have even the vaguest notion how to handle a skid or a blow out? How many have their vehicle fully inspected at least annually?</p><p>Bottom line is, stuff breaks. Maybe it's defective by design, maybe it wears out, maybe it has to deal with a combination of events no one ever predicted. If there are things you could do to prepare for these contingencies but you chose not to, who is really responsible for the results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial and military pilots spend hours upon hours training in simulators to handle failure scenarios .
Look at all the failure contingency training NASA puts astronauts through .
Yet here in the US , any idiot who can pass an eye test and answer a few basic questions about traffic laws can get a license to operate a motor vehicle.How many drivers will instinctively reach for the parking brake if the brake pedal fails ?
How may will reach for neutral if the accelerator sticks ?
How many have even the vaguest notion how to handle a skid or a blow out ?
How many have their vehicle fully inspected at least annually ? Bottom line is , stuff breaks .
Maybe it 's defective by design , maybe it wears out , maybe it has to deal with a combination of events no one ever predicted .
If there are things you could do to prepare for these contingencies but you chose not to , who is really responsible for the results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial and military pilots spend hours upon hours training in simulators to handle failure scenarios.
Look at all the failure contingency training NASA puts astronauts through.
Yet here in the US, any idiot who can pass an eye test and answer a few basic questions about traffic laws can get a license to operate a motor vehicle.How many drivers will instinctively reach for the parking brake if the brake pedal fails?
How may will reach for neutral if the accelerator sticks?
How many have even the vaguest notion how to handle a skid or a blow out?
How many have their vehicle fully inspected at least annually?Bottom line is, stuff breaks.
Maybe it's defective by design, maybe it wears out, maybe it has to deal with a combination of events no one ever predicted.
If there are things you could do to prepare for these contingencies but you chose not to, who is really responsible for the results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392122</id>
	<title>Re:followup comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine</i> <br> <br>
Please, do appreciate how brakes really work. Modern petrol cars, with servo assist brakes work by using engine vacuum to help with the braking. It is vastly harder to brake without this vacuum assist. With the throttle closed, there is plenty of vacuum, and it is easy to brake. With the throttle wide open there is *no vacuum* - some vacuum is 'stored', but only a limited amount and often this leaks - it may therefore not be possible for a human to generate enough braking torque to counter the engine.<br>
Combine this problem with a electronic gearbox that refuses to go into neutral for some reason - and an owner may find themselves genuinely unable to control their cars.<br>
I prefer diesels, in which the braking servo assist works differently due to the lack of a throttle (and hence vacuum).</htmltext>
<tokenext>On virtually every production car made on the planet , the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine Please , do appreciate how brakes really work .
Modern petrol cars , with servo assist brakes work by using engine vacuum to help with the braking .
It is vastly harder to brake without this vacuum assist .
With the throttle closed , there is plenty of vacuum , and it is easy to brake .
With the throttle wide open there is * no vacuum * - some vacuum is 'stored ' , but only a limited amount and often this leaks - it may therefore not be possible for a human to generate enough braking torque to counter the engine .
Combine this problem with a electronic gearbox that refuses to go into neutral for some reason - and an owner may find themselves genuinely unable to control their cars .
I prefer diesels , in which the braking servo assist works differently due to the lack of a throttle ( and hence vacuum ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On virtually every production car made on the planet, the brakes have vastly more torque than the engine  
Please, do appreciate how brakes really work.
Modern petrol cars, with servo assist brakes work by using engine vacuum to help with the braking.
It is vastly harder to brake without this vacuum assist.
With the throttle closed, there is plenty of vacuum, and it is easy to brake.
With the throttle wide open there is *no vacuum* - some vacuum is 'stored', but only a limited amount and often this leaks - it may therefore not be possible for a human to generate enough braking torque to counter the engine.
Combine this problem with a electronic gearbox that refuses to go into neutral for some reason - and an owner may find themselves genuinely unable to control their cars.
I prefer diesels, in which the braking servo assist works differently due to the lack of a throttle (and hence vacuum).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392058</id>
	<title>Laziness, Impatience and Hubris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be honest.  Do any of these qualities describe Japanese?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be honest .
Do any of these qualities describe Japanese ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be honest.
Do any of these qualities describe Japanese?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think it odd?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267983120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that, in quest of featuritis, designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards. Direct physical connection of steering columns, braking systems, and throttles (so they act as a stopcock, it's good enough for jet fighters!) should be mandatory.</p><p>Yes, I know some commercial systems have done acceptably, but consumer shit will NEVER be of that quality due to price competition, and consumers won't maintain their vehicles like aircraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that , in quest of featuritis , designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards .
Direct physical connection of steering columns , braking systems , and throttles ( so they act as a stopcock , it 's good enough for jet fighters !
) should be mandatory.Yes , I know some commercial systems have done acceptably , but consumer shit will NEVER be of that quality due to price competition , and consumers wo n't maintain their vehicles like aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that, in quest of featuritis, designers implement consumer-quality systems that lack VERY SIMPLE safeguards.
Direct physical connection of steering columns, braking systems, and throttles (so they act as a stopcock, it's good enough for jet fighters!
) should be mandatory.Yes, I know some commercial systems have done acceptably, but consumer shit will NEVER be of that quality due to price competition, and consumers won't maintain their vehicles like aircraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397450</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267984380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully when you and your faggy Prius go careening off the road or crumpling into another car I will be safe in my big happy American car.<br>Think again about America not having an answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully when you and your faggy Prius go careening off the road or crumpling into another car I will be safe in my big happy American car.Think again about America not having an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully when you and your faggy Prius go careening off the road or crumpling into another car I will be safe in my big happy American car.Think again about America not having an answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394490</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?</p></div><p>It's an election year. 'Nuff said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this ? It 's an election year .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly is there a congressional case going on about this?It's an election year.
'Nuff said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391910</id>
	<title>Re:Software has no business</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1267989060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Software has no business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... being in control of braking and acceleration.''</p><p>I used to think so, as well. But I've come to realize that it's not software or no software that matters. It's the result. If the result is that I'm safer, I'll take the software. So the real question then is: has the transition to software-controlled braking and acceleration improved or deteriorated safety/reliability/energy efficiency/cost-effectiveness/whatever other metrics are important?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Software has no business ... being in control of braking and acceleration .
''I used to think so , as well .
But I 've come to realize that it 's not software or no software that matters .
It 's the result .
If the result is that I 'm safer , I 'll take the software .
So the real question then is : has the transition to software-controlled braking and acceleration improved or deteriorated safety/reliability/energy efficiency/cost-effectiveness/whatever other metrics are important ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Software has no business ... being in control of braking and acceleration.
''I used to think so, as well.
But I've come to realize that it's not software or no software that matters.
It's the result.
If the result is that I'm safer, I'll take the software.
So the real question then is: has the transition to software-controlled braking and acceleration improved or deteriorated safety/reliability/energy efficiency/cost-effectiveness/whatever other metrics are important?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391358</id>
	<title>Re:V&amp;V</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1267986120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what is worse:</p><p>Producing life-critical software in the millions of lines of code that cannot be verified even in the most crucial parts.<br>or<br>Employing that software knowing full well that it isn't verified and cannot ever be verified in a life-threatening application<br>or<br>Shrugging off your responsibility for human deaths caused by your product by presenting software failures to be as natural as night and day.</p><p>I always held Toyota in high esteem for their environmental efforts, but the mindset in their current line of failures expresses laziness, stupidity, criminal neglect and an insolent attitude.</p><p>The only thing worse than that is knowing all other manufactures would've swept it under the rug and not even publicly accepted any failure at all. Toyota may be one-eyed king of the blind, but it's still a pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what is worse : Producing life-critical software in the millions of lines of code that can not be verified even in the most crucial parts.orEmploying that software knowing full well that it is n't verified and can not ever be verified in a life-threatening applicationorShrugging off your responsibility for human deaths caused by your product by presenting software failures to be as natural as night and day.I always held Toyota in high esteem for their environmental efforts , but the mindset in their current line of failures expresses laziness , stupidity , criminal neglect and an insolent attitude.The only thing worse than that is knowing all other manufactures would 've swept it under the rug and not even publicly accepted any failure at all .
Toyota may be one-eyed king of the blind , but it 's still a pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what is worse:Producing life-critical software in the millions of lines of code that cannot be verified even in the most crucial parts.orEmploying that software knowing full well that it isn't verified and cannot ever be verified in a life-threatening applicationorShrugging off your responsibility for human deaths caused by your product by presenting software failures to be as natural as night and day.I always held Toyota in high esteem for their environmental efforts, but the mindset in their current line of failures expresses laziness, stupidity, criminal neglect and an insolent attitude.The only thing worse than that is knowing all other manufactures would've swept it under the rug and not even publicly accepted any failure at all.
Toyota may be one-eyed king of the blind, but it's still a pity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</id>
	<title>Formal verification?</title>
	<author>Pegasus</author>
	<datestamp>1267982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software."</p><p>Um<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did this guy ever heard of formal verification? Or is math proof not good enough for him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific , firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
" Um ... did this guy ever heard of formal verification ?
Or is math proof not good enough for him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is well-known in our community that there is no scientific, firm way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"Um ... did this guy ever heard of formal verification?
Or is math proof not good enough for him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392188</id>
	<title>Re:Good time to buy a Toyota</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1267990320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if you were being ironic, but I'm inclined to agree solely based on cost. After this media drubbing, Toyota dealers will be desperate for sales when they resume sales of affected model lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you were being ironic , but I 'm inclined to agree solely based on cost .
After this media drubbing , Toyota dealers will be desperate for sales when they resume sales of affected model lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you were being ironic, but I'm inclined to agree solely based on cost.
After this media drubbing, Toyota dealers will be desperate for sales when they resume sales of affected model lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392618</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think it odd?</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1267992900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default "debugging" which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not stop but most vehicles have a thing called limp mode, which causes the vehicle to kick into a safe state where it can only go upto 45-50mph and has very low acceleration.  There was a time when limp mode only had a drivable range of 60mi to get you to a service center of some kind, but the distance is much larger now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default " debugging " which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop.Not stop but most vehicles have a thing called limp mode , which causes the vehicle to kick into a safe state where it can only go upto 45-50mph and has very low acceleration .
There was a time when limp mode only had a drivable range of 60mi to get you to a service center of some kind , but the distance is much larger now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that the systems in vehicles do not have a default "debugging" which should basically trigger the vehicle to stop.Not stop but most vehicles have a thing called limp mode, which causes the vehicle to kick into a safe state where it can only go upto 45-50mph and has very low acceleration.
There was a time when limp mode only had a drivable range of 60mi to get you to a service center of some kind, but the distance is much larger now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396708</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>raygundan</author>
	<datestamp>1267977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all this</i></p><p>A minor nit-- the Prius has been available in Japan since 1997, and in the US since late 2000.  It's a 13-year-old car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all thisA minor nit-- the Prius has been available in Japan since 1997 , and in the US since late 2000 .
It 's a 13-year-old car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all thisA minor nit-- the Prius has been available in Japan since 1997, and in the US since late 2000.
It's a 13-year-old car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400200</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem with the Volt is that you still have to carry around both drivetrains. This might not be so silly if we were using turbines, which don't waste so much weight. Chrysler had the technology in the 1960s, and there's a company which is IIRC called Capstone which is kicking out engine-generators right now. Nissan is bringing out an all-EV this year (supposedly) called the LEAF, perhaps there will be a retrofit. The Capstone turbine has been put into some five-door Ford by an independent group, perhaps a school? Sorry, too lazy to link right now. Give me a volt with a turbine and I'll get interested. Until then I figure any of this stuff is most appropriate for people with multiple vehicles, and the other vehicle should be a mechanical turbodiesel that you can actually work on and get fuel for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with the Volt is that you still have to carry around both drivetrains .
This might not be so silly if we were using turbines , which do n't waste so much weight .
Chrysler had the technology in the 1960s , and there 's a company which is IIRC called Capstone which is kicking out engine-generators right now .
Nissan is bringing out an all-EV this year ( supposedly ) called the LEAF , perhaps there will be a retrofit .
The Capstone turbine has been put into some five-door Ford by an independent group , perhaps a school ?
Sorry , too lazy to link right now .
Give me a volt with a turbine and I 'll get interested .
Until then I figure any of this stuff is most appropriate for people with multiple vehicles , and the other vehicle should be a mechanical turbodiesel that you can actually work on and get fuel for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with the Volt is that you still have to carry around both drivetrains.
This might not be so silly if we were using turbines, which don't waste so much weight.
Chrysler had the technology in the 1960s, and there's a company which is IIRC called Capstone which is kicking out engine-generators right now.
Nissan is bringing out an all-EV this year (supposedly) called the LEAF, perhaps there will be a retrofit.
The Capstone turbine has been put into some five-door Ford by an independent group, perhaps a school?
Sorry, too lazy to link right now.
Give me a volt with a turbine and I'll get interested.
Until then I figure any of this stuff is most appropriate for people with multiple vehicles, and the other vehicle should be a mechanical turbodiesel that you can actually work on and get fuel for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391900</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With that world view, I suspect you have your head up your ivory tower.</p><p>In my classes, they frequently "proved" a program correct that clearly would not run safely on a real computer.  Yes, the proof was perfect.  The computer was not.</p><p>How do you predict what a component does at slightly inadequate voltage?  What does the system do if it encounters an EMP or a magnetic field?  What if the sensors in the roadbed set up a rare electrical environment?  Why won't the car start on a cold day after a rainy day if the air pressure increases?  [Answer: a tiny crack in the hermetic seal of the igniter]</p><p>And then there is the timing race that occurred about once a month on a dedicated disk controller, turning the data stream to crap for about 3 seconds.  How long did it take me to find what was causing that?  The software was proved perfect but the equipment still failed spectacularly. [And no, it wasn't the date changing.  Answer:  Extremely subtle clock drift]</p><p>With human input (making the combinations of variables approximately infinite), the extreme environment of a vehicle, and billions of user-hours which will include component degradation, there is no possible way to prove the software before its obsolescence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With that world view , I suspect you have your head up your ivory tower.In my classes , they frequently " proved " a program correct that clearly would not run safely on a real computer .
Yes , the proof was perfect .
The computer was not.How do you predict what a component does at slightly inadequate voltage ?
What does the system do if it encounters an EMP or a magnetic field ?
What if the sensors in the roadbed set up a rare electrical environment ?
Why wo n't the car start on a cold day after a rainy day if the air pressure increases ?
[ Answer : a tiny crack in the hermetic seal of the igniter ] And then there is the timing race that occurred about once a month on a dedicated disk controller , turning the data stream to crap for about 3 seconds .
How long did it take me to find what was causing that ?
The software was proved perfect but the equipment still failed spectacularly .
[ And no , it was n't the date changing .
Answer : Extremely subtle clock drift ] With human input ( making the combinations of variables approximately infinite ) , the extreme environment of a vehicle , and billions of user-hours which will include component degradation , there is no possible way to prove the software before its obsolescence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that world view, I suspect you have your head up your ivory tower.In my classes, they frequently "proved" a program correct that clearly would not run safely on a real computer.
Yes, the proof was perfect.
The computer was not.How do you predict what a component does at slightly inadequate voltage?
What does the system do if it encounters an EMP or a magnetic field?
What if the sensors in the roadbed set up a rare electrical environment?
Why won't the car start on a cold day after a rainy day if the air pressure increases?
[Answer: a tiny crack in the hermetic seal of the igniter]And then there is the timing race that occurred about once a month on a dedicated disk controller, turning the data stream to crap for about 3 seconds.
How long did it take me to find what was causing that?
The software was proved perfect but the equipment still failed spectacularly.
[And no, it wasn't the date changing.
Answer:  Extremely subtle clock drift]With human input (making the combinations of variables approximately infinite), the extreme environment of a vehicle, and billions of user-hours which will include component degradation, there is no possible way to prove the software before its obsolescence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395434</id>
	<title>Re:Formal verification?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is the minor matter of time. Trivial programs can be proven correct (and have been). Non-trivial ones are intractable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is the minor matter of time .
Trivial programs can be proven correct ( and have been ) .
Non-trivial ones are intractable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is the minor matter of time.
Trivial programs can be proven correct (and have been).
Non-trivial ones are intractable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400140</id>
	<title>Re:Verification needs serious improvements</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just be glad it has a modern suspension. Bad alignment (which can result from tire wear alone, but wasn't in my case) can produce a symptom called the "wobble of death" in IFS 4x4 ford pickups. All KINDS of bad alignment and bad tires, though, and my 1989 240SX still rode pretty well and could be driven hard and tossed around. A 1984 300ZX would wobble like mad on bad rubber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just be glad it has a modern suspension .
Bad alignment ( which can result from tire wear alone , but was n't in my case ) can produce a symptom called the " wobble of death " in IFS 4x4 ford pickups .
All KINDS of bad alignment and bad tires , though , and my 1989 240SX still rode pretty well and could be driven hard and tossed around .
A 1984 300ZX would wobble like mad on bad rubber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just be glad it has a modern suspension.
Bad alignment (which can result from tire wear alone, but wasn't in my case) can produce a symptom called the "wobble of death" in IFS 4x4 ford pickups.
All KINDS of bad alignment and bad tires, though, and my 1989 240SX still rode pretty well and could be driven hard and tossed around.
A 1984 300ZX would wobble like mad on bad rubber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148</id>
	<title>Re:tin.foil.hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267953120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all this time american "muscle" motor never came up with an answer.</p></div><p>The Prius is a car that, for a car of comparable size, is more expensive to build, more complex to repair, and nets out as more expensive over the general lifetime of a car.  (Even if YOU don't own it for the whole time, most US cars run for a few hundred thousand miles before being scrapped.)</p><p>GM, who tried an electric car WAY back in the early 90's, decided to largely pass on the paralell hybrid tech of the Prius and its ilk, opting for only a small pseudo-hybrid option on a few of its models.  (Essentially, a small electric motor/brake assist on the drive wheels.)  Instead, they're rolling out an actually innovative serial hybrid this year.  And if you take a moment to understand the difference, the change is profound.</p><p>The Prius and its ilk are "parallel hybrids."  You have an underpowered classic internal-combustion motor driving the wheels via direct kinetic energy, with an electric motor also contributing kinetic energy from electrical power it gets from regenerative breaking or, for the modified ones, being plugged into a wall.  It will NOT perform its full performance without any gas in the tank, and for most models you can't even drive it to a gas station 1 mile away if you don't have enough gas to start.</p><p>GM's Volt and its ilk are "serial hybrids", like diesel-electric trains.  The wheels are powered ONLY by an all-electric drivetrain, and the internal combustion engine serves only to produce additional electricity.  The engine only runs at its peak efficiency, and doesn't need to run at all if the batteries have enough of a charge in them.  You could literally drain your fuel tank dry, top off the battery charge, and then drive to a gas station 40 miles away.  (And with fewer moving parts, a mass-market volt should last longer and be easier to maintain than its paralell-hybrid ilk.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all this time american " muscle " motor never came up with an answer.The Prius is a car that , for a car of comparable size , is more expensive to build , more complex to repair , and nets out as more expensive over the general lifetime of a car .
( Even if YOU do n't own it for the whole time , most US cars run for a few hundred thousand miles before being scrapped .
) GM , who tried an electric car WAY back in the early 90 's , decided to largely pass on the paralell hybrid tech of the Prius and its ilk , opting for only a small pseudo-hybrid option on a few of its models .
( Essentially , a small electric motor/brake assist on the drive wheels .
) Instead , they 're rolling out an actually innovative serial hybrid this year .
And if you take a moment to understand the difference , the change is profound.The Prius and its ilk are " parallel hybrids .
" You have an underpowered classic internal-combustion motor driving the wheels via direct kinetic energy , with an electric motor also contributing kinetic energy from electrical power it gets from regenerative breaking or , for the modified ones , being plugged into a wall .
It will NOT perform its full performance without any gas in the tank , and for most models you ca n't even drive it to a gas station 1 mile away if you do n't have enough gas to start.GM 's Volt and its ilk are " serial hybrids " , like diesel-electric trains .
The wheels are powered ONLY by an all-electric drivetrain , and the internal combustion engine serves only to produce additional electricity .
The engine only runs at its peak efficiency , and does n't need to run at all if the batteries have enough of a charge in them .
You could literally drain your fuel tank dry , top off the battery charge , and then drive to a gas station 40 miles away .
( And with fewer moving parts , a mass-market volt should last longer and be easier to maintain than its paralell-hybrid ilk .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the prius is like a 5 year old car model and in all this time american "muscle" motor never came up with an answer.The Prius is a car that, for a car of comparable size, is more expensive to build, more complex to repair, and nets out as more expensive over the general lifetime of a car.
(Even if YOU don't own it for the whole time, most US cars run for a few hundred thousand miles before being scrapped.
)GM, who tried an electric car WAY back in the early 90's, decided to largely pass on the paralell hybrid tech of the Prius and its ilk, opting for only a small pseudo-hybrid option on a few of its models.
(Essentially, a small electric motor/brake assist on the drive wheels.
)  Instead, they're rolling out an actually innovative serial hybrid this year.
And if you take a moment to understand the difference, the change is profound.The Prius and its ilk are "parallel hybrids.
"  You have an underpowered classic internal-combustion motor driving the wheels via direct kinetic energy, with an electric motor also contributing kinetic energy from electrical power it gets from regenerative breaking or, for the modified ones, being plugged into a wall.
It will NOT perform its full performance without any gas in the tank, and for most models you can't even drive it to a gas station 1 mile away if you don't have enough gas to start.GM's Volt and its ilk are "serial hybrids", like diesel-electric trains.
The wheels are powered ONLY by an all-electric drivetrain, and the internal combustion engine serves only to produce additional electricity.
The engine only runs at its peak efficiency, and doesn't need to run at all if the batteries have enough of a charge in them.
You could literally drain your fuel tank dry, top off the battery charge, and then drive to a gas station 40 miles away.
(And with fewer moving parts, a mass-market volt should last longer and be easier to maintain than its paralell-hybrid ilk.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394382</id>
	<title>Toyota's new ad slogan</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1267960740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take off in a Toyota!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take off in a Toyota !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take off in a Toyota!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393810</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1267957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually</p></div><p>
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles. When you go towards 0 K, particles move slower, and hypothetically at 0 K there is no motion. If you can imagine moving slower than zero speed, then you can start challenging this limit.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>0K is considered the absolute zero , but It 'll probably be challenged eventually Temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles .
When you go towards 0 K , particles move slower , and hypothetically at 0 K there is no motion .
If you can imagine moving slower than zero speed , then you can start challenging this limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles.
When you go towards 0 K, particles move slower, and hypothetically at 0 K there is no motion.
If you can imagine moving slower than zero speed, then you can start challenging this limit.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31402032</id>
	<title>Re:Formal verification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read it like this :<br>"It is well-known in our community that there is no <i>economically justifiable</i> way of actually completely verifying and validating software."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read it like this : " It is well-known in our community that there is no economically justifiable way of actually completely verifying and validating software .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read it like this :"It is well-known in our community that there is no economically justifiable way of actually completely verifying and validating software.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31402032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31408344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_1445243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391202
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31402032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31395150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31392210
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31408344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31391358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_1445243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31390574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31396708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31394676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31397450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31393148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31400200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_1445243.31407988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
