<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_10_2327236</id>
	<title>"Mythical Man-Month" Supposedly Busted By MIT Startup</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268226900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"We all know about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mythical\_Man-Month">Mythical Man-Month</a>, the argument that adding more programmers to a software project just makes it later and later. A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth, using an MIT holiday month to hire <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/quadruple-productivity-with-an-intern-army/">20 college student interns to get all their work done</a> and quadrupling its productivity."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " We all know about the Mythical Man-Month , the argument that adding more programmers to a software project just makes it later and later .
A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth , using an MIT holiday month to hire 20 college student interns to get all their work done and quadrupling its productivity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "We all know about the Mythical Man-Month, the argument that adding more programmers to a software project just makes it later and later.
A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth, using an MIT holiday month to hire 20 college student interns to get all their work done and quadrupling its productivity.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434474</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268241720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I have your ID?</p><p>Ok, ok, seriously. Well, times change, so does the IT audience. Turn back the wheel by, like, ten years. Peak of the dot.com bubble. The news were different, the audience was different, many of the people reading here today weren't even part of the workforce back then (you pretty much have to be near your 30th birthday if you are). Without wanting to invoke "get off my lawn" replies, I think this might be the reason.</p><p>Unlike "older" people, like me and probably you, these people grew up with the internet having "always been there". Much like cable TV has always been there for us. And just like cable changed the way TV news have to be to be noticed, I guess the internet generation changed the way internet news have to be to be on the frontpage of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., digg and the rest. They have to be more sensationalist. Content? Fact-checked? Ffft, who cares, it's going to be forgotten anyway in 20 minutes.</p><p>Quick, without looking: Name 3 headlines of yesterday's news on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.. Not to me, just to yourself.</p><p>If you passed, you probably grew up without internet and its "here today, forgotten tomorrow" attitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I have your ID ? Ok , ok , seriously .
Well , times change , so does the IT audience .
Turn back the wheel by , like , ten years .
Peak of the dot.com bubble .
The news were different , the audience was different , many of the people reading here today were n't even part of the workforce back then ( you pretty much have to be near your 30th birthday if you are ) .
Without wanting to invoke " get off my lawn " replies , I think this might be the reason.Unlike " older " people , like me and probably you , these people grew up with the internet having " always been there " .
Much like cable TV has always been there for us .
And just like cable changed the way TV news have to be to be noticed , I guess the internet generation changed the way internet news have to be to be on the frontpage of /. , digg and the rest .
They have to be more sensationalist .
Content ? Fact-checked ?
Ffft , who cares , it 's going to be forgotten anyway in 20 minutes.Quick , without looking : Name 3 headlines of yesterday 's news on /.. Not to me , just to yourself.If you passed , you probably grew up without internet and its " here today , forgotten tomorrow " attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I have your ID?Ok, ok, seriously.
Well, times change, so does the IT audience.
Turn back the wheel by, like, ten years.
Peak of the dot.com bubble.
The news were different, the audience was different, many of the people reading here today weren't even part of the workforce back then (you pretty much have to be near your 30th birthday if you are).
Without wanting to invoke "get off my lawn" replies, I think this might be the reason.Unlike "older" people, like me and probably you, these people grew up with the internet having "always been there".
Much like cable TV has always been there for us.
And just like cable changed the way TV news have to be to be noticed, I guess the internet generation changed the way internet news have to be to be on the frontpage of /., digg and the rest.
They have to be more sensationalist.
Content? Fact-checked?
Ffft, who cares, it's going to be forgotten anyway in 20 minutes.Quick, without looking: Name 3 headlines of yesterday's news on /.. Not to me, just to yourself.If you passed, you probably grew up without internet and its "here today, forgotten tomorrow" attitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436072</id>
	<title>Debt Slaves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268308860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are just seeing the effect of smart people being allowed to work at all. Where I come from my university debt never exceeded 10.000 USD. Because these smart people are not allowed to have any influence they struggle with insande debts and for what? For the right to earn? It is disgusting and rediculous..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are just seeing the effect of smart people being allowed to work at all .
Where I come from my university debt never exceeded 10.000 USD .
Because these smart people are not allowed to have any influence they struggle with insande debts and for what ?
For the right to earn ?
It is disgusting and rediculous. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are just seeing the effect of smart people being allowed to work at all.
Where I come from my university debt never exceeded 10.000 USD.
Because these smart people are not allowed to have any influence they struggle with insande debts and for what?
For the right to earn?
It is disgusting and rediculous..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433520</id>
	<title>Re:No Indians on their team.</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268231640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right- I don't see anybody who's not there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right- I do n't see anybody who 's not there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right- I don't see anybody who's not there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434070</id>
	<title>Once is fine, but is it repeatable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268237280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My main problem with this story is exemplified by this:</p><blockquote><div><p>So, how do you quadruple the size of your engineering team in one month and still keep everyone productive?</p><p>(<em>Followed by their list of dot points of what they did</em>)</p></div></blockquote><p>This makes it seem like they have found a technique that enables you to achieve the mythical man-month with reasonable reliability.  That's not true: they tried a set of things <em>once</em> and it worked.  That's far from demonstrating that their team's organisation, environment and process is at least likely to work for you too.  For that, we need to have <em>lots</em> of cases where what they recommend works -- but we don't.  If and when we get that, then I'll believe them.  Until then, this is just a list of things that you might like to try for yourself to see whether they work for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My main problem with this story is exemplified by this : So , how do you quadruple the size of your engineering team in one month and still keep everyone productive ?
( Followed by their list of dot points of what they did ) This makes it seem like they have found a technique that enables you to achieve the mythical man-month with reasonable reliability .
That 's not true : they tried a set of things once and it worked .
That 's far from demonstrating that their team 's organisation , environment and process is at least likely to work for you too .
For that , we need to have lots of cases where what they recommend works -- but we do n't .
If and when we get that , then I 'll believe them .
Until then , this is just a list of things that you might like to try for yourself to see whether they work for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main problem with this story is exemplified by this:So, how do you quadruple the size of your engineering team in one month and still keep everyone productive?
(Followed by their list of dot points of what they did)This makes it seem like they have found a technique that enables you to achieve the mythical man-month with reasonable reliability.
That's not true: they tried a set of things once and it worked.
That's far from demonstrating that their team's organisation, environment and process is at least likely to work for you too.
For that, we need to have lots of cases where what they recommend works -- but we don't.
If and when we get that, then I'll believe them.
Until then, this is just a list of things that you might like to try for yourself to see whether they work for you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434724</id>
	<title>alterslash.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268245200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read <a href="http://alterslash.org/" title="alterslash.org" rel="nofollow">alterslash.org</a> [alterslash.org] - i discovered a while back: the best thing about slashdot is the (good) comments...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read alterslash.org [ alterslash.org ] - i discovered a while back : the best thing about slashdot is the ( good ) comments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read alterslash.org [alterslash.org] - i discovered a while back: the best thing about slashdot is the (good) comments...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720</id>
	<title>9 women and the baby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the same rule as "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month"? I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it didn't go over really well with her.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same rule as " 9 women ca n't make a baby in 1 month " ?
I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it did n't go over really well with her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same rule as "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month"?
I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it didn't go over really well with her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435196</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1268338680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not just that, but this is the opposite of busting a myth.  Busting a myth is what you do when you prove that a myth is not real.  If you prove that a myth <i>is</i> real, which is the apparent claim here, that is something else.  Proving, confirming, or even validating the myth - but not busting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just that , but this is the opposite of busting a myth .
Busting a myth is what you do when you prove that a myth is not real .
If you prove that a myth is real , which is the apparent claim here , that is something else .
Proving , confirming , or even validating the myth - but not busting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just that, but this is the opposite of busting a myth.
Busting a myth is what you do when you prove that a myth is not real.
If you prove that a myth is real, which is the apparent claim here, that is something else.
Proving, confirming, or even validating the myth - but not busting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434686</id>
	<title>How long can they keep it up.</title>
	<author>mxh83</author>
	<datestamp>1268244540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone works like that when they are interns.  Then they realize it's just the beginning</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone works like that when they are interns .
Then they realize it 's just the beginning</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone works like that when they are interns.
Then they realize it's just the beginning</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433796</id>
	<title>Re:Niice</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1268234520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The brunette in the middle is kinda cute too, in an "officer, she told me she's 19, I swear!" kind of way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The brunette in the middle is kinda cute too , in an " officer , she told me she 's 19 , I swear !
" kind of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The brunette in the middle is kinda cute too, in an "officer, she told me she's 19, I swear!
" kind of way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434700</id>
	<title>Re:This is MIT, remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268244720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well. Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google, they're the ones who need to be supervised.</p></div><p>I don't think autonomy is a quality that can only be found in the best of the best. It may even be orthogonal to programming skills. Sadly corporate culture selects for the exact opposite. Corporations want people to be either leaders or "good team workers", i.e. subordinate minds. And that's why many good people prefer to be self-employed.<br>Solution: Don't hire people who can't even manage themselves. Refuse to work with them. They should work on an assembly line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well .
Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google , they 're the ones who need to be supervised.I do n't think autonomy is a quality that can only be found in the best of the best .
It may even be orthogonal to programming skills .
Sadly corporate culture selects for the exact opposite .
Corporations want people to be either leaders or " good team workers " , i.e .
subordinate minds .
And that 's why many good people prefer to be self-employed.Solution : Do n't hire people who ca n't even manage themselves .
Refuse to work with them .
They should work on an assembly line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well.
Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google, they're the ones who need to be supervised.I don't think autonomy is a quality that can only be found in the best of the best.
It may even be orthogonal to programming skills.
Sadly corporate culture selects for the exact opposite.
Corporations want people to be either leaders or "good team workers", i.e.
subordinate minds.
And that's why many good people prefer to be self-employed.Solution: Don't hire people who can't even manage themselves.
Refuse to work with them.
They should work on an assembly line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31450648</id>
	<title>Linux Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268403420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They pre-selected people that required no training and then hit them with something simple which you never get in a real software company, which by the way do not really use Linux either. This is just hype and bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They pre-selected people that required no training and then hit them with something simple which you never get in a real software company , which by the way do not really use Linux either .
This is just hype and bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They pre-selected people that required no training and then hit them with something simple which you never get in a real software company, which by the way do not really use Linux either.
This is just hype and bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</id>
	<title>Disappointing</title>
	<author>Tracy Reed</author>
	<datestamp>1268236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been a slashdot reader since darn near the beginning (see uid). And I finally have to admit that the quality of information here has seriously gone downhill. As everyone else has rightly pointed out, the article is bogus. They didn't break Brooke's law.</p><p>Just yesterday a server I administer which runs a very non-optimized PHP and graphics and database heavy site was linked in a story on the front page. The server barely noticed the load. A hit every other second or so. And it was a direct link, no coral caching or whatever. I remember a day when slashdot had enough readers to utterly destroy a single server. It looks like a lot of people have taken off. If this continues I may have to take off too. As it is reddit, hackernews, and many other tech news sites with superior content in my rss feed are competing with slashdot for my eyeballs. I may finally have to trim slashdot from the list if this keeps up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been a slashdot reader since darn near the beginning ( see uid ) .
And I finally have to admit that the quality of information here has seriously gone downhill .
As everyone else has rightly pointed out , the article is bogus .
They did n't break Brooke 's law.Just yesterday a server I administer which runs a very non-optimized PHP and graphics and database heavy site was linked in a story on the front page .
The server barely noticed the load .
A hit every other second or so .
And it was a direct link , no coral caching or whatever .
I remember a day when slashdot had enough readers to utterly destroy a single server .
It looks like a lot of people have taken off .
If this continues I may have to take off too .
As it is reddit , hackernews , and many other tech news sites with superior content in my rss feed are competing with slashdot for my eyeballs .
I may finally have to trim slashdot from the list if this keeps up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been a slashdot reader since darn near the beginning (see uid).
And I finally have to admit that the quality of information here has seriously gone downhill.
As everyone else has rightly pointed out, the article is bogus.
They didn't break Brooke's law.Just yesterday a server I administer which runs a very non-optimized PHP and graphics and database heavy site was linked in a story on the front page.
The server barely noticed the load.
A hit every other second or so.
And it was a direct link, no coral caching or whatever.
I remember a day when slashdot had enough readers to utterly destroy a single server.
It looks like a lot of people have taken off.
If this continues I may have to take off too.
As it is reddit, hackernews, and many other tech news sites with superior content in my rss feed are competing with slashdot for my eyeballs.
I may finally have to trim slashdot from the list if this keeps up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434118</id>
	<title>Not at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268237880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By their own description they did not "bust" anything.  The idea is that throwing more people at a mess will make the mess go away faster.  People have to communicate, which takes too long when it is 1 on 1.   The n(n-1)/2  means 1 on 1 connections.  The MIT folks sat in the same room shoulder to shoulder so communication was way more efficient.</p><p>Also the book says that you can't toss in more people(no matter how qualified in general) without adding hierarchy... the MIT folks had everything planned ahead of time.  They allocated the jobs ahead of time.</p><p>The lessons of what not to do were not done, so the situation was successful.  Theory is still valid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By their own description they did not " bust " anything .
The idea is that throwing more people at a mess will make the mess go away faster .
People have to communicate , which takes too long when it is 1 on 1 .
The n ( n-1 ) /2 means 1 on 1 connections .
The MIT folks sat in the same room shoulder to shoulder so communication was way more efficient.Also the book says that you ca n't toss in more people ( no matter how qualified in general ) without adding hierarchy... the MIT folks had everything planned ahead of time .
They allocated the jobs ahead of time.The lessons of what not to do were not done , so the situation was successful .
Theory is still valid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By their own description they did not "bust" anything.
The idea is that throwing more people at a mess will make the mess go away faster.
People have to communicate, which takes too long when it is 1 on 1.
The n(n-1)/2  means 1 on 1 connections.
The MIT folks sat in the same room shoulder to shoulder so communication was way more efficient.Also the book says that you can't toss in more people(no matter how qualified in general) without adding hierarchy... the MIT folks had everything planned ahead of time.
They allocated the jobs ahead of time.The lessons of what not to do were not done, so the situation was successful.
Theory is still valid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437178</id>
	<title>Unbusted</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1268321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These weren't men, they were MIT students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These were n't men , they were MIT students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These weren't men, they were MIT students.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433972</id>
	<title>Showering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how much effort it took to convince everyone to shower daily?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much effort it took to convince everyone to shower daily ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much effort it took to convince everyone to shower daily?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582</id>
	<title>This is MIT, remember</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1268232360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing I hear a lot from programmers, particularly programmers unhappy with their Pointy Haired-Bosses, is, "I don't need to be managed as much as my bosses think I do!", and then pointing to a place like Google- which has one of the lowest managers-per-programmer ratios in the industry yet still produces amazing products- as an example.<br>
<br>
The thing is, though, Google gets away with this because they hire the best of the best, and the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well. Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google, they're the ones who need to be supervised. Managers are for programmers who write code that ends up on The Daily WTF, which is many of them.<br>
<br>
I suspect that's what's going on here. Of <i>course</i> a bunch of MIT students can just hop on a project and be productive, that's why they're going to MIT. This result does not apply to the world at large.<br>
<br>
Having said that though, I bet some of the techniques they used <i>would</i> apply to the world at large. I for one am going to see what I can learn from this with regards to getting people up-to-speed on new projects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I hear a lot from programmers , particularly programmers unhappy with their Pointy Haired-Bosses , is , " I do n't need to be managed as much as my bosses think I do !
" , and then pointing to a place like Google- which has one of the lowest managers-per-programmer ratios in the industry yet still produces amazing products- as an example .
The thing is , though , Google gets away with this because they hire the best of the best , and the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well .
Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google , they 're the ones who need to be supervised .
Managers are for programmers who write code that ends up on The Daily WTF , which is many of them .
I suspect that 's what 's going on here .
Of course a bunch of MIT students can just hop on a project and be productive , that 's why they 're going to MIT .
This result does not apply to the world at large .
Having said that though , I bet some of the techniques they used would apply to the world at large .
I for one am going to see what I can learn from this with regards to getting people up-to-speed on new projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I hear a lot from programmers, particularly programmers unhappy with their Pointy Haired-Bosses, is, "I don't need to be managed as much as my bosses think I do!
", and then pointing to a place like Google- which has one of the lowest managers-per-programmer ratios in the industry yet still produces amazing products- as an example.
The thing is, though, Google gets away with this because they hire the best of the best, and the best of the best can manage themselves pretty well.
Most programmers are nowhere near as talented as the ones working at Google, they're the ones who need to be supervised.
Managers are for programmers who write code that ends up on The Daily WTF, which is many of them.
I suspect that's what's going on here.
Of course a bunch of MIT students can just hop on a project and be productive, that's why they're going to MIT.
This result does not apply to the world at large.
Having said that though, I bet some of the techniques they used would apply to the world at large.
I for one am going to see what I can learn from this with regards to getting people up-to-speed on new projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434254</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268239320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Exaclty I'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project. I've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it's disturbing.</p></div></blockquote><p>You could, to some degree, if you divide the work up correctly.  You probably can't have more than a small number of people working on the game engine or deciding on the story line, but you can massively parallelize the people designing models, skins, etc., letting them pop items from the queue of object requests coming from the people writing the story line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exaclty I 'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project .
I 've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it 's disturbing.You could , to some degree , if you divide the work up correctly .
You probably ca n't have more than a small number of people working on the game engine or deciding on the story line , but you can massively parallelize the people designing models , skins , etc. , letting them pop items from the queue of object requests coming from the people writing the story line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exaclty I'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project.
I've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it's disturbing.You could, to some degree, if you divide the work up correctly.
You probably can't have more than a small number of people working on the game engine or deciding on the story line, but you can massively parallelize the people designing models, skins, etc., letting them pop items from the queue of object requests coming from the people writing the story line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436344</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268313480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you just misunderstood the general interest for your personal Microsoft witch hunt? No offense, but not everyone considers yet another poor-linux-company-against-the-mighty-Microsoft breaking news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you just misunderstood the general interest for your personal Microsoft witch hunt ?
No offense , but not everyone considers yet another poor-linux-company-against-the-mighty-Microsoft breaking news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you just misunderstood the general interest for your personal Microsoft witch hunt?
No offense, but not everyone considers yet another poor-linux-company-against-the-mighty-Microsoft breaking news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31439636</id>
	<title>Of course!!</title>
	<author>admintpj</author>
	<datestamp>1268329560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the MIT programmers had no issues. It goes along with the theory every project manager has "If you get 9 women in a room, you can have a baby in a month"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the MIT programmers had no issues .
It goes along with the theory every project manager has " If you get 9 women in a room , you can have a baby in a month "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the MIT programmers had no issues.
It goes along with the theory every project manager has "If you get 9 women in a room, you can have a baby in a month"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433856</id>
	<title>Sensational Headline Drives Click Throughs</title>
	<author>Mag7</author>
	<datestamp>1268235060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But like the body of this post, the reality is not the revelation you were hoping for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But like the body of this post , the reality is not the revelation you were hoping for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But like the body of this post, the reality is not the revelation you were hoping for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31449330</id>
	<title>embarrassingly parallel...</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1268384880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is even exemplified by Brooks as not a MMM problem in the: "9 pregnant women having 9 separate babies in 9 months" (in parallel) and <b>not</b> "9 pregnant women producing 1 babies in 1 month"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is even exemplified by Brooks as not a MMM problem in the : " 9 pregnant women having 9 separate babies in 9 months " ( in parallel ) and not " 9 pregnant women producing 1 babies in 1 month "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is even exemplified by Brooks as not a MMM problem in the: "9 pregnant women having 9 separate babies in 9 months" (in parallel) and not "9 pregnant women producing 1 babies in 1 month"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434496</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Sparklepony</author>
	<datestamp>1268241960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the solution to the declining quality of Slashdot's articles is to add more editors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the solution to the declining quality of Slashdot 's articles is to add more editors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the solution to the declining quality of Slashdot's articles is to add more editors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434568</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Ambush Commander</author>
	<datestamp>1268242800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, just jump ship already. I just read Slashdot these days for the perverse pleasure of silly stories.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>P.S. This article hit front page YC and Proggit several hours before Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , just jump ship already .
I just read Slashdot these days for the perverse pleasure of silly stories .
: - ) P.S. This article hit front page YC and Proggit several hours before Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, just jump ship already.
I just read Slashdot these days for the perverse pleasure of silly stories.
:-)P.S. This article hit front page YC and Proggit several hours before Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506</id>
	<title>Agreed</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1268231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You hit the nail on the head. The interns were put on separate problems so there was no need for much communication.
<p>
In addition, the article notes that the company was "a bit spoiled" by being in a position to hire from a large pool of MIT students, many of whom they knew personally. I like the subtle understatement here.
</p><p>
Not only did they put the target practically in front of the gun (by having an embarrassingly parallel problem), they also employed an embarrassingly high-calibre gun (i.e. hand-picked MIT students). Scoring has therefore been high. Surprise!
</p><p>
This experiment didn't do anything at all to bust the mythical man-month. Who came up with that title anyway? Must have been some slashdot editor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail on the head .
The interns were put on separate problems so there was no need for much communication .
In addition , the article notes that the company was " a bit spoiled " by being in a position to hire from a large pool of MIT students , many of whom they knew personally .
I like the subtle understatement here .
Not only did they put the target practically in front of the gun ( by having an embarrassingly parallel problem ) , they also employed an embarrassingly high-calibre gun ( i.e .
hand-picked MIT students ) .
Scoring has therefore been high .
Surprise ! This experiment did n't do anything at all to bust the mythical man-month .
Who came up with that title anyway ?
Must have been some slashdot editor .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail on the head.
The interns were put on separate problems so there was no need for much communication.
In addition, the article notes that the company was "a bit spoiled" by being in a position to hire from a large pool of MIT students, many of whom they knew personally.
I like the subtle understatement here.
Not only did they put the target practically in front of the gun (by having an embarrassingly parallel problem), they also employed an embarrassingly high-calibre gun (i.e.
hand-picked MIT students).
Scoring has therefore been high.
Surprise!

This experiment didn't do anything at all to bust the mythical man-month.
Who came up with that title anyway?
Must have been some slashdot editor ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435030</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Zonnald</author>
	<datestamp>1268249520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, I'm overweight and over 40 - you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I 'm overweight and over 40 - you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I'm overweight and over 40 - you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434322</id>
	<title>Tiger Woods</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1268240040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this the same rule as "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month"? I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it didn't go over really well with her.</p></div><p>I thought Tiger Woods was trying to prove that rule wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same rule as " 9 women ca n't make a baby in 1 month " ?
I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it did n't go over really well with her.I thought Tiger Woods was trying to prove that rule wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same rule as "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month"?
I tried to explain the rule to our HR lady and it didn't go over really well with her.I thought Tiger Woods was trying to prove that rule wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435258</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>tyme</author>
	<datestamp>1268339640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby.</p></div></blockquote><p>And that, folks, is what happens when you cross the streams. Never cross the streams!</p></div></blockquote><p>Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule , but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby.And that , folks , is what happens when you cross the streams .
Never cross the streams ! Right .
That 's bad .
Okay. All right .
Important safety tip .
Thanks , Egon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby.And that, folks, is what happens when you cross the streams.
Never cross the streams!Right.
That's bad.
Okay. All right.
Important safety tip.
Thanks, Egon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434558</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Vasheron</author>
	<datestamp>1268242620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are also talking about MIT students looking to prove themselves, which makes for a smart and highly motivated group - by no means your average group of code monkeys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are also talking about MIT students looking to prove themselves , which makes for a smart and highly motivated group - by no means your average group of code monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are also talking about MIT students looking to prove themselves, which makes for a smart and highly motivated group - by no means your average group of code monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435044</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>BigGerman</author>
	<datestamp>1268249760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>8 women not 9. It is a stretch goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 women not 9 .
It is a stretch goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 women not 9.
It is a stretch goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436882</id>
	<title>Zipheads</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1268319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorta like a room of Focused zipheads in Vernor Vinge's Deepness In The Sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorta like a room of Focused zipheads in Vernor Vinge 's Deepness In The Sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorta like a room of Focused zipheads in Vernor Vinge's Deepness In The Sky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31440598</id>
	<title>Pregnancy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268333220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If adding more people to a single monolithic project always resulted in an increase in productivity, nine women could produce a baby in one month... although that might not be the right analogy to use on Slashdot.  Sure, parallelization works in some cases, but the act of doubling the number of people working on something adds overhead that, in some (many?) cases eats into the potential performance gains, especially when tasks that need to be performed can't be done in parallel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If adding more people to a single monolithic project always resulted in an increase in productivity , nine women could produce a baby in one month... although that might not be the right analogy to use on Slashdot .
Sure , parallelization works in some cases , but the act of doubling the number of people working on something adds overhead that , in some ( many ?
) cases eats into the potential performance gains , especially when tasks that need to be performed ca n't be done in parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If adding more people to a single monolithic project always resulted in an increase in productivity, nine women could produce a baby in one month... although that might not be the right analogy to use on Slashdot.
Sure, parallelization works in some cases, but the act of doubling the number of people working on something adds overhead that, in some (many?
) cases eats into the potential performance gains, especially when tasks that need to be performed can't be done in parallel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435380</id>
	<title>Re:Nope</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1268341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No they didn't. The communication cost remained O(n^2), they just improved the constant multiplier, not the order. To actually bust the MM theory, they should have quadrupled a couple times more, and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim.</i></p><p>Indeed.  Brooks noticed the problems on a team with (AIUI) over 1,000 programmers. If this company can scale up an order of magnitude or so and still keep their performance-per-programmer high, I'd love to know how they manage it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they did n't .
The communication cost remained O ( n ^ 2 ) , they just improved the constant multiplier , not the order .
To actually bust the MM theory , they should have quadrupled a couple times more , and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim.Indeed .
Brooks noticed the problems on a team with ( AIUI ) over 1,000 programmers .
If this company can scale up an order of magnitude or so and still keep their performance-per-programmer high , I 'd love to know how they manage it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they didn't.
The communication cost remained O(n^2), they just improved the constant multiplier, not the order.
To actually bust the MM theory, they should have quadrupled a couple times more, and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim.Indeed.
Brooks noticed the problems on a team with (AIUI) over 1,000 programmers.
If this company can scale up an order of magnitude or so and still keep their performance-per-programmer high, I'd love to know how they manage it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435680</id>
	<title>Mythical Man Month</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1268302080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it depends on the situation, but normally just dumping more people onto a problem does not work, they need time to get comfortable with the code, the structures the entire project, etc.. add to that if you cannot divide the problem properly more than 7 people working on a single problem start to begin to conflict each other. I have seen parts of a project getting a standstill when the magical 7 people number was reached due to conflicts etc... even if all of those were knowledgeable about the internals of the projects part!<br>So in other words what can be applied to parallel processing can be applied even more to adding more people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it depends on the situation , but normally just dumping more people onto a problem does not work , they need time to get comfortable with the code , the structures the entire project , etc.. add to that if you can not divide the problem properly more than 7 people working on a single problem start to begin to conflict each other .
I have seen parts of a project getting a standstill when the magical 7 people number was reached due to conflicts etc... even if all of those were knowledgeable about the internals of the projects part ! So in other words what can be applied to parallel processing can be applied even more to adding more people : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it depends on the situation, but normally just dumping more people onto a problem does not work, they need time to get comfortable with the code, the structures the entire project, etc.. add to that if you cannot divide the problem properly more than 7 people working on a single problem start to begin to conflict each other.
I have seen parts of a project getting a standstill when the magical 7 people number was reached due to conflicts etc... even if all of those were knowledgeable about the internals of the projects part!So in other words what can be applied to parallel processing can be applied even more to adding more people :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578</id>
	<title>10 years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268232300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132, no long after it lost more than half the value.  The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied.  For some reason, conservation of energy, momentum, mass, were considered to be obsolete antiquated concepts.  Sometimes it takes a smack in the ass to get people back to reality.
<p>
The real issue here, and one that is not addressed, is the quality of code.  What the MMM addressed, IMHO, was adding developers to a project with defined metrics and ending up with code that met those metrics and integrated well with a larger code base.  The reason that adding people did not work was the overhead needed to communicate between the develpers, which is 2^n proposition
</p><p>
As such, until the code is proven in service one cannot really say if the experiment worked.  If the code is just going to have to be re-factored, or interfaces rewritten, then nothing was done other spending money to achieve a minimal product to meet a deadline.  This is important, but does not prove or disprove anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132 , no long after it lost more than half the value .
The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied .
For some reason , conservation of energy , momentum , mass , were considered to be obsolete antiquated concepts .
Sometimes it takes a smack in the ass to get people back to reality .
The real issue here , and one that is not addressed , is the quality of code .
What the MMM addressed , IMHO , was adding developers to a project with defined metrics and ending up with code that met those metrics and integrated well with a larger code base .
The reason that adding people did not work was the overhead needed to communicate between the develpers , which is 2 ^ n proposition As such , until the code is proven in service one can not really say if the experiment worked .
If the code is just going to have to be re-factored , or interfaces rewritten , then nothing was done other spending money to achieve a minimal product to meet a deadline .
This is important , but does not prove or disprove anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132, no long after it lost more than half the value.
The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied.
For some reason, conservation of energy, momentum, mass, were considered to be obsolete antiquated concepts.
Sometimes it takes a smack in the ass to get people back to reality.
The real issue here, and one that is not addressed, is the quality of code.
What the MMM addressed, IMHO, was adding developers to a project with defined metrics and ending up with code that met those metrics and integrated well with a larger code base.
The reason that adding people did not work was the overhead needed to communicate between the develpers, which is 2^n proposition

As such, until the code is proven in service one cannot really say if the experiment worked.
If the code is just going to have to be re-factored, or interfaces rewritten, then nothing was done other spending money to achieve a minimal product to meet a deadline.
This is important, but does not prove or disprove anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31443388</id>
	<title>Not mythical</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1268299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not mythical man-month: it's MIThical man-month.</p><p>On a more serious note:<br>the mythical man-month is about adding people to a late project. The late project usually<br>has substantial codebase that the newcomer has to get on terms with, and the colleagues<br>
&nbsp; who would be able to answer questions (late projects used to under-documented as well)<br>are too busy all the time, so the newcomers will mostly just annoy the old ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not mythical man-month : it 's MIThical man-month.On a more serious note : the mythical man-month is about adding people to a late project .
The late project usuallyhas substantial codebase that the newcomer has to get on terms with , and the colleagues   who would be able to answer questions ( late projects used to under-documented as well ) are too busy all the time , so the newcomers will mostly just annoy the old ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not mythical man-month: it's MIThical man-month.On a more serious note:the mythical man-month is about adding people to a late project.
The late project usuallyhas substantial codebase that the newcomer has to get on terms with, and the colleagues
  who would be able to answer questions (late projects used to under-documented as well)are too busy all the time, so the newcomers will mostly just annoy the old ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Wayne247</author>
	<datestamp>1268240040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not as old as you (in terms of Slashdot readership), but I've been here quite some time as well.</p><p>I think that, as readers left this site, editors slashed into the content quality and try the quantity approach. I used to be able to read the site daily and have time to post replies here and there. Now, I have it set in an RSS reader because the volume is much larger to the point that if I miss a day, 20 to 30 stories fly by.</p><p>It's not that there are more things to report now than 10 years ago, it's all these crappy filler stories, blog posts about nothing interesting, jokes and whatnot that make this site less and less relevant.</p><p>Additionally, while Slashdot used to be where the breaking news was happening, I can now find interesting and important stories up to THREE days later on this site than on digg, for example.</p><p>Me and some other people have submitted, days ago, important stories (in our opinion) about a FOSS company that is suing the Quebec government for the right to bid on contracts that went directly to Microsoft. This is being heard by the supreme court right now. The supreme court! And it's not even making slashdot!</p><p>It's not too late, but the editors really have to try and voluntarily lose a few percent point of page views in order to bring back quality and, more importantly, fellowship of readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as old as you ( in terms of Slashdot readership ) , but I 've been here quite some time as well.I think that , as readers left this site , editors slashed into the content quality and try the quantity approach .
I used to be able to read the site daily and have time to post replies here and there .
Now , I have it set in an RSS reader because the volume is much larger to the point that if I miss a day , 20 to 30 stories fly by.It 's not that there are more things to report now than 10 years ago , it 's all these crappy filler stories , blog posts about nothing interesting , jokes and whatnot that make this site less and less relevant.Additionally , while Slashdot used to be where the breaking news was happening , I can now find interesting and important stories up to THREE days later on this site than on digg , for example.Me and some other people have submitted , days ago , important stories ( in our opinion ) about a FOSS company that is suing the Quebec government for the right to bid on contracts that went directly to Microsoft .
This is being heard by the supreme court right now .
The supreme court !
And it 's not even making slashdot ! It 's not too late , but the editors really have to try and voluntarily lose a few percent point of page views in order to bring back quality and , more importantly , fellowship of readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as old as you (in terms of Slashdot readership), but I've been here quite some time as well.I think that, as readers left this site, editors slashed into the content quality and try the quantity approach.
I used to be able to read the site daily and have time to post replies here and there.
Now, I have it set in an RSS reader because the volume is much larger to the point that if I miss a day, 20 to 30 stories fly by.It's not that there are more things to report now than 10 years ago, it's all these crappy filler stories, blog posts about nothing interesting, jokes and whatnot that make this site less and less relevant.Additionally, while Slashdot used to be where the breaking news was happening, I can now find interesting and important stories up to THREE days later on this site than on digg, for example.Me and some other people have submitted, days ago, important stories (in our opinion) about a FOSS company that is suing the Quebec government for the right to bid on contracts that went directly to Microsoft.
This is being heard by the supreme court right now.
The supreme court!
And it's not even making slashdot!It's not too late, but the editors really have to try and voluntarily lose a few percent point of page views in order to bring back quality and, more importantly, fellowship of readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434298</id>
	<title>basic fail.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268239740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the fundamental problem with trying to measure compeltion time by man hours and expecting more man power to get the job done faster in every instance, is that one hour of programmer b's time is not equal to one hour of programmer a's time.<p>
a million monkeys on a million type writers WILL NOT produce shakespear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fundamental problem with trying to measure compeltion time by man hours and expecting more man power to get the job done faster in every instance , is that one hour of programmer b 's time is not equal to one hour of programmer a 's time .
a million monkeys on a million type writers WILL NOT produce shakespear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fundamental problem with trying to measure compeltion time by man hours and expecting more man power to get the job done faster in every instance, is that one hour of programmer b's time is not equal to one hour of programmer a's time.
a million monkeys on a million type writers WILL NOT produce shakespear</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1268237400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts
  to create one super-huge baby.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And that, folks, is what happens when you cross the streams. Never cross the streams!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule , but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby .
And that , folks , is what happens when you cross the streams .
Never cross the streams !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts
  to create one super-huge baby.
And that, folks, is what happens when you cross the streams.
Never cross the streams!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436812</id>
	<title>Agile?</title>
	<author>coolkarni</author>
	<datestamp>1268318760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the MM-M typically applies to conventional Waterfall model where considerable amount of time has been spent on analysis/design. Newbies joining in later need to understand the whole ball game. Whereas Agile has been good at beating MM-M where you only need to know what you need to know to get started.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the MM-M typically applies to conventional Waterfall model where considerable amount of time has been spent on analysis/design .
Newbies joining in later need to understand the whole ball game .
Whereas Agile has been good at beating MM-M where you only need to know what you need to know to get started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the MM-M typically applies to conventional Waterfall model where considerable amount of time has been spent on analysis/design.
Newbies joining in later need to understand the whole ball game.
Whereas Agile has been good at beating MM-M where you only need to know what you need to know to get started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434950</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1268248260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, there was a risk of run away egos torpedoing the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , there was a risk of run away egos torpedoing the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, there was a risk of run away egos torpedoing the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436710</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268317920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's how you DEFEAT the super-huge baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's how you DEFEAT the super-huge baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's how you DEFEAT the super-huge baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434304</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1268239800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, the quality of articles has nose dived hugely, and the timeliness is terribly (I usually see things on one of the sub-reddits I subscribe to a day or three earlier than on Slashdot). Slashdot either has to become MUCH more timely (take the reddit route), or add value with analysis/etc. (ala economist.com). Fortunately the discussion at +5 is still reasonably good (there's usually at least 2-3 comments per technical story worth reading once it's had 8-12 hours) which is the only reason I'm still here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , the quality of articles has nose dived hugely , and the timeliness is terribly ( I usually see things on one of the sub-reddits I subscribe to a day or three earlier than on Slashdot ) .
Slashdot either has to become MUCH more timely ( take the reddit route ) , or add value with analysis/etc .
( ala economist.com ) .
Fortunately the discussion at + 5 is still reasonably good ( there 's usually at least 2-3 comments per technical story worth reading once it 's had 8-12 hours ) which is the only reason I 'm still here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, the quality of articles has nose dived hugely, and the timeliness is terribly (I usually see things on one of the sub-reddits I subscribe to a day or three earlier than on Slashdot).
Slashdot either has to become MUCH more timely (take the reddit route), or add value with analysis/etc.
(ala economist.com).
Fortunately the discussion at +5 is still reasonably good (there's usually at least 2-3 comments per technical story worth reading once it's had 8-12 hours) which is the only reason I'm still here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435540</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268299920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, sure, that's an apt analogy, because as we all know, the problem with 9 chicks trying to make a baby in one month is exactly that: crazy communication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , sure , that 's an apt analogy , because as we all know , the problem with 9 chicks trying to make a baby in one month is exactly that : crazy communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, sure, that's an apt analogy, because as we all know, the problem with 9 chicks trying to make a baby in one month is exactly that: crazy communication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434408</id>
	<title>Re:This is MIT, remember</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268241000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. No! I <i> <b>need</b> </i> a project manager! And I pride myself with being a fairly good programmer. And even the guys at MIT can benefit from one.</p><p>But I, like every programmer, need a <i>good</i> project manager. One that <i>helps</i> me instead of standing in my way. I don't need someone who checks my "progress" on some arbitrary measure that has nothing in common with the project at hand and peppers my calender with meaningless milestones. I also don't need someone to tell me how to write my code. I need a project manager that understands what he and I are trying to do together: Make a project work out. My job is to create it. His job is to make that possible to me.</p><p>And for that I need a project manager that deals with what I tend to call the "unpleasantries" of projects. In other words, clients, management, in a nutshell: PEOPLE. People make a project late. Especially when they start to meddle with it for some reason. The perfect project manager would lay down the project together with the client, do all the yucky legal stuff around it, give me the specs (not "and here kinda-sorta like $other\_program", I mean specs you can work with), then keeps customer, management and all the other unnecessary evils of a project busy while I do my job so I don't get pestered. By meetings. And dumb questions.</p><p>I once actually had a PM like that. And it was a dream. We (him, me and a few other very motivated and talented people) created projects in record time. It was the best year of my life!</p><p>The company did what it does in such cases: They promoted him away from the position he was born for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
No ! I need a project manager !
And I pride myself with being a fairly good programmer .
And even the guys at MIT can benefit from one.But I , like every programmer , need a good project manager .
One that helps me instead of standing in my way .
I do n't need someone who checks my " progress " on some arbitrary measure that has nothing in common with the project at hand and peppers my calender with meaningless milestones .
I also do n't need someone to tell me how to write my code .
I need a project manager that understands what he and I are trying to do together : Make a project work out .
My job is to create it .
His job is to make that possible to me.And for that I need a project manager that deals with what I tend to call the " unpleasantries " of projects .
In other words , clients , management , in a nutshell : PEOPLE .
People make a project late .
Especially when they start to meddle with it for some reason .
The perfect project manager would lay down the project together with the client , do all the yucky legal stuff around it , give me the specs ( not " and here kinda-sorta like $ other \ _program " , I mean specs you can work with ) , then keeps customer , management and all the other unnecessary evils of a project busy while I do my job so I do n't get pestered .
By meetings .
And dumb questions.I once actually had a PM like that .
And it was a dream .
We ( him , me and a few other very motivated and talented people ) created projects in record time .
It was the best year of my life ! The company did what it does in such cases : They promoted him away from the position he was born for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
No! I  need  a project manager!
And I pride myself with being a fairly good programmer.
And even the guys at MIT can benefit from one.But I, like every programmer, need a good project manager.
One that helps me instead of standing in my way.
I don't need someone who checks my "progress" on some arbitrary measure that has nothing in common with the project at hand and peppers my calender with meaningless milestones.
I also don't need someone to tell me how to write my code.
I need a project manager that understands what he and I are trying to do together: Make a project work out.
My job is to create it.
His job is to make that possible to me.And for that I need a project manager that deals with what I tend to call the "unpleasantries" of projects.
In other words, clients, management, in a nutshell: PEOPLE.
People make a project late.
Especially when they start to meddle with it for some reason.
The perfect project manager would lay down the project together with the client, do all the yucky legal stuff around it, give me the specs (not "and here kinda-sorta like $other\_program", I mean specs you can work with), then keeps customer, management and all the other unnecessary evils of a project busy while I do my job so I don't get pestered.
By meetings.
And dumb questions.I once actually had a PM like that.
And it was a dream.
We (him, me and a few other very motivated and talented people) created projects in record time.
It was the best year of my life!The company did what it does in such cases: They promoted him away from the position he was born for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31482462</id>
	<title>What might Brooks himself say?</title>
	<author>shalomsky</author>
	<datestamp>1268670540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What might Brooks himself say?

I imagine something like this:  "Oh, you disproved TMMM?   Great!   I've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong.   That means you've found a reproducible way to improve the efficiency with which software is developed.    You've found the silver bullet.   Could you please publish your solution and let us all review it?"    So, we're waiting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What might Brooks himself say ?
I imagine something like this : " Oh , you disproved TMMM ?
Great ! I 've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong .
That means you 've found a reproducible way to improve the efficiency with which software is developed .
You 've found the silver bullet .
Could you please publish your solution and let us all review it ?
" So , we 're waiting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What might Brooks himself say?
I imagine something like this:  "Oh, you disproved TMMM?
Great!   I've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong.
That means you've found a reproducible way to improve the efficiency with which software is developed.
You've found the silver bullet.
Could you please publish your solution and let us all review it?
"    So, we're waiting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433990</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268236320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus as (presumably young) students they probably haven't accumulated prohibitive amounts of bitterness and skepticism about work yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus as ( presumably young ) students they probably have n't accumulated prohibitive amounts of bitterness and skepticism about work yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus as (presumably young) students they probably haven't accumulated prohibitive amounts of bitterness and skepticism about work yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433472</id>
	<title>MM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely if adding people to a project increases productivity, then you're actually confirming the existence of a Mythical Man month?</p><p>To put it another way, you're busting the "Mythical Man-Month' is actually a myth" myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely if adding people to a project increases productivity , then you 're actually confirming the existence of a Mythical Man month ? To put it another way , you 're busting the " Mythical Man-Month ' is actually a myth " myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely if adding people to a project increases productivity, then you're actually confirming the existence of a Mythical Man month?To put it another way, you're busting the "Mythical Man-Month' is actually a myth" myth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433966</id>
	<title>Theres also the obvious possibility...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that perhaps the original programmers at the 'linux startup' sucked in the first place, and that the other guys they hired were actually much better programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that perhaps the original programmers at the 'linux startup ' sucked in the first place , and that the other guys they hired were actually much better programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that perhaps the original programmers at the 'linux startup' sucked in the first place, and that the other guys they hired were actually much better programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1268234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you RTFA, they don't really address Brook's point. They all worked on small projects. Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project. The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.</p></div><p>They addressed Brooks' point <em>by</em> having lots of small projects instead of one big ball of spaghetti code.</p><p>Here's a quote from the 20th anniversary edition ("The Mythical Man-Month after 20 years" chapter):</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Parnas Was Right, and I Was Wrong about Information Hiding</b> </p><p>In Chapter 7 I contrast two approaches to the question of how much each team member should be allowed or encouraged to know about each other's designs and code. In the Operating System/360 project, we decided that <em>all</em> programmers should see <em>all</em> the material -- i.e., each programmer having a copy of the project workbook, which came to number over 10,000 pages. Harlan Mills has argued persuasively that "programming should be a public process," that exposing all the work to everybody's gaze helps quality control, both by peer pressure to do things well and by peers actually spotting flaws and bugs.</p><p>This view contrasts sharply with Davin Parnas's teaching that modules of code should be encapsulated with well-defined interfaces, and that the interior of such a module should be the private property of its programmer, not discernible from outside. Programmers are most effective if shielded from, not exposed to, the innards of modules not their own.</p><p>I dismissed Parnas's concept as a "recipe for disaster" in Chapter 7. Parnas was right, and I was wrong. I am now convinced that information hiding, today often embodied in object-oriented programming, is the only way of raising the level of software design.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The underlying reason that man-months are mythical is because of communication overhead; if everyone has to know what everyone else is working on, your team <em>can not</em> scale. In the section I quoted Brooks goes on to talk about easier reuse and fewer errors, but proper encapsulation also has the effect of <em>dramatically</em> reducing the overhead of extra people -- now instead of operating on the system as a whole, the law operates on individual subsystems or modules.</p><p>In this case Brooks' Law was addressed by whatever design or happenstance led to (1) the projects being independent instead of intertwingled, and (2) there being enough of these independent projects for all the interns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you RTFA , they do n't really address Brook 's point .
They all worked on small projects .
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large , sufficiently complex project .
The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.They addressed Brooks ' point by having lots of small projects instead of one big ball of spaghetti code.Here 's a quote from the 20th anniversary edition ( " The Mythical Man-Month after 20 years " chapter ) : Parnas Was Right , and I Was Wrong about Information Hiding In Chapter 7 I contrast two approaches to the question of how much each team member should be allowed or encouraged to know about each other 's designs and code .
In the Operating System/360 project , we decided that all programmers should see all the material -- i.e. , each programmer having a copy of the project workbook , which came to number over 10,000 pages .
Harlan Mills has argued persuasively that " programming should be a public process , " that exposing all the work to everybody 's gaze helps quality control , both by peer pressure to do things well and by peers actually spotting flaws and bugs.This view contrasts sharply with Davin Parnas 's teaching that modules of code should be encapsulated with well-defined interfaces , and that the interior of such a module should be the private property of its programmer , not discernible from outside .
Programmers are most effective if shielded from , not exposed to , the innards of modules not their own.I dismissed Parnas 's concept as a " recipe for disaster " in Chapter 7 .
Parnas was right , and I was wrong .
I am now convinced that information hiding , today often embodied in object-oriented programming , is the only way of raising the level of software design .
The underlying reason that man-months are mythical is because of communication overhead ; if everyone has to know what everyone else is working on , your team can not scale .
In the section I quoted Brooks goes on to talk about easier reuse and fewer errors , but proper encapsulation also has the effect of dramatically reducing the overhead of extra people -- now instead of operating on the system as a whole , the law operates on individual subsystems or modules.In this case Brooks ' Law was addressed by whatever design or happenstance led to ( 1 ) the projects being independent instead of intertwingled , and ( 2 ) there being enough of these independent projects for all the interns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you RTFA, they don't really address Brook's point.
They all worked on small projects.
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project.
The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.They addressed Brooks' point by having lots of small projects instead of one big ball of spaghetti code.Here's a quote from the 20th anniversary edition ("The Mythical Man-Month after 20 years" chapter): Parnas Was Right, and I Was Wrong about Information Hiding In Chapter 7 I contrast two approaches to the question of how much each team member should be allowed or encouraged to know about each other's designs and code.
In the Operating System/360 project, we decided that all programmers should see all the material -- i.e., each programmer having a copy of the project workbook, which came to number over 10,000 pages.
Harlan Mills has argued persuasively that "programming should be a public process," that exposing all the work to everybody's gaze helps quality control, both by peer pressure to do things well and by peers actually spotting flaws and bugs.This view contrasts sharply with Davin Parnas's teaching that modules of code should be encapsulated with well-defined interfaces, and that the interior of such a module should be the private property of its programmer, not discernible from outside.
Programmers are most effective if shielded from, not exposed to, the innards of modules not their own.I dismissed Parnas's concept as a "recipe for disaster" in Chapter 7.
Parnas was right, and I was wrong.
I am now convinced that information hiding, today often embodied in object-oriented programming, is the only way of raising the level of software design.
The underlying reason that man-months are mythical is because of communication overhead; if everyone has to know what everyone else is working on, your team can not scale.
In the section I quoted Brooks goes on to talk about easier reuse and fewer errors, but proper encapsulation also has the effect of dramatically reducing the overhead of extra people -- now instead of operating on the system as a whole, the law operates on individual subsystems or modules.In this case Brooks' Law was addressed by whatever design or happenstance led to (1) the projects being independent instead of intertwingled, and (2) there being enough of these independent projects for all the interns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437348</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not too sure about that, but if you can find 9 women who are willing, I'm willing to give it a go too.  Or at least have a couple of practice runs at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too sure about that , but if you can find 9 women who are willing , I 'm willing to give it a go too .
Or at least have a couple of practice runs at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too sure about that, but if you can find 9 women who are willing, I'm willing to give it a go too.
Or at least have a couple of practice runs at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434102</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268237640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the real world people get hired are hand picked and are usually people the boss or someone on their teams know.</p><p>Its a real problem when you are fresh out of school and no one has ever heard of you. Networking is an important part of a job. This is especially true the more higher up you are on the corporate ladder. CEO's are hired on the basis of having extensive contacts with vendors and other companies to increase sales.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the real world people get hired are hand picked and are usually people the boss or someone on their teams know.Its a real problem when you are fresh out of school and no one has ever heard of you .
Networking is an important part of a job .
This is especially true the more higher up you are on the corporate ladder .
CEO 's are hired on the basis of having extensive contacts with vendors and other companies to increase sales .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the real world people get hired are hand picked and are usually people the boss or someone on their teams know.Its a real problem when you are fresh out of school and no one has ever heard of you.
Networking is an important part of a job.
This is especially true the more higher up you are on the corporate ladder.
CEO's are hired on the basis of having extensive contacts with vendors and other companies to increase sales.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435346</id>
	<title>If you had read BEFORE posting your headline:</title>
	<author>zimtmaxl</author>
	<datestamp>1268340720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the authors make a clear distinction between the mythical man month and what they did!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the authors make a clear distinction between the mythical man month and what they did !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the authors make a clear distinction between the mythical man month and what they did!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435836</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>scumm</author>
	<datestamp>1268304660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think stories shows up on Digg before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you should check out Reddit (especially the various tech subreddits).  That's where you find the stories 4 days before they show up on Digg.</p><p>Nowadays, I mostly come to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for the discussions.  I will admit that the quality of discourse might have sagged a bit since its heyday, but on a whole I still find genuinely stimulating articles and commentary often enough to be a regular reader after all these years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think stories shows up on Digg before /. , you should check out Reddit ( especially the various tech subreddits ) .
That 's where you find the stories 4 days before they show up on Digg.Nowadays , I mostly come to / .
for the discussions .
I will admit that the quality of discourse might have sagged a bit since its heyday , but on a whole I still find genuinely stimulating articles and commentary often enough to be a regular reader after all these years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think stories shows up on Digg before /., you should check out Reddit (especially the various tech subreddits).
That's where you find the stories 4 days before they show up on Digg.Nowadays, I mostly come to /.
for the discussions.
I will admit that the quality of discourse might have sagged a bit since its heyday, but on a whole I still find genuinely stimulating articles and commentary often enough to be a regular reader after all these years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434546</id>
	<title>they disproved mmm, or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268242500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... maybe their real engineers were just lazy and/or stupid.  i love interns, but if a group of interns can 4x your productivity you might have a problem with your full-time people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... maybe their real engineers were just lazy and/or stupid .
i love interns , but if a group of interns can 4x your productivity you might have a problem with your full-time people : p.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... maybe their real engineers were just lazy and/or stupid.
i love interns, but if a group of interns can 4x your productivity you might have a problem with your full-time people :p...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435392</id>
	<title>Panacea of Software Manufacturing...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1268341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there I hoped that they have discovered the "panacea" of software manufacturing.</p><p>I have read the first chapters of the Mythical Man-Month book so, I have a general Idea of what it is about. However, my hunch is that the reason why the relation between number of people and speed/quality of software produced are not linearly correlated is mostly a management problem. That is, it is a matter of finding the correct way to divide the software problem in ways that can be concurrently developed by several people.</p><p>In one of the books examples a surgery room is mentioned; explaining that, more doctors would not increase the quality or speed of the surgery. However if you think about all the tools used by the people in the surgery room, then there is a good chance that the work of several other persons is helping in the surgery.</p><p>This is process is done to a certain degree in game development, where there is people working in development tools to be used by the main developers, designers etc. Although not directly working in the game, such tool-makers are helping speed up the software development and increase the quality of the game.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there I hoped that they have discovered the " panacea " of software manufacturing.I have read the first chapters of the Mythical Man-Month book so , I have a general Idea of what it is about .
However , my hunch is that the reason why the relation between number of people and speed/quality of software produced are not linearly correlated is mostly a management problem .
That is , it is a matter of finding the correct way to divide the software problem in ways that can be concurrently developed by several people.In one of the books examples a surgery room is mentioned ; explaining that , more doctors would not increase the quality or speed of the surgery .
However if you think about all the tools used by the people in the surgery room , then there is a good chance that the work of several other persons is helping in the surgery.This is process is done to a certain degree in game development , where there is people working in development tools to be used by the main developers , designers etc .
Although not directly working in the game , such tool-makers are helping speed up the software development and increase the quality of the game .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there I hoped that they have discovered the "panacea" of software manufacturing.I have read the first chapters of the Mythical Man-Month book so, I have a general Idea of what it is about.
However, my hunch is that the reason why the relation between number of people and speed/quality of software produced are not linearly correlated is mostly a management problem.
That is, it is a matter of finding the correct way to divide the software problem in ways that can be concurrently developed by several people.In one of the books examples a surgery room is mentioned; explaining that, more doctors would not increase the quality or speed of the surgery.
However if you think about all the tools used by the people in the surgery room, then there is a good chance that the work of several other persons is helping in the surgery.This is process is done to a certain degree in game development, where there is people working in development tools to be used by the main developers, designers etc.
Although not directly working in the game, such tool-makers are helping speed up the software development and increase the quality of the game.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437072</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>weasel3d</author>
	<datestamp>1268320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not the same thing.---you guys know that, if you've been around code.  Adding people to do a number of projects is not the same as throwing bodies to a single late project.  One is trying to plant an acre orange tree seeds and the other is constructing an apple prototype (and just adding to the crowd of confused onlookers).  Two different situations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the same thing.---you guys know that , if you 've been around code .
Adding people to do a number of projects is not the same as throwing bodies to a single late project .
One is trying to plant an acre orange tree seeds and the other is constructing an apple prototype ( and just adding to the crowd of confused onlookers ) .
Two different situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the same thing.---you guys know that, if you've been around code.
Adding people to do a number of projects is not the same as throwing bodies to a single late project.
One is trying to plant an acre orange tree seeds and the other is constructing an apple prototype (and just adding to the crowd of confused onlookers).
Two different situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434390</id>
	<title>Suggestions on how to beat it : a theory</title>
	<author>Teunis</author>
	<datestamp>1268240820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get a team of any size together with &lt;i&gt;compatible&lt;/i&gt; communication styles, reasonably similar skill set and a culture &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; communication, and there will likely be great results - possibly greater than any one acting alone.  Synergy is an interesting thing.<br><br>I've seen this in the open source world for instance..  and I'd love to take part (if I can only find a project with problems I can identify)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a team of any size together with compatible communication styles , reasonably similar skill set and a culture of communication , and there will likely be great results - possibly greater than any one acting alone .
Synergy is an interesting thing.I 've seen this in the open source world for instance.. and I 'd love to take part ( if I can only find a project with problems I can identify )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a team of any size together with compatible communication styles, reasonably similar skill set and a culture of communication, and there will likely be great results - possibly greater than any one acting alone.
Synergy is an interesting thing.I've seen this in the open source world for instance..  and I'd love to take part (if I can only find a project with problems I can identify)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436888</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>ubuwalker31</author>
	<datestamp>1268319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aside from being in the same room, these programmers were barely working together....</p></div><p>I've worked in some crowded office conditions, but absolutely nothing like what is pictured in this article.  There are 10 people crowded into this 1 person office space.  I could see six people fitting into this space humanely - eg without violating the fire code / without personality conflicts / without bumping into each other while working.</p><p>I guess this is why they only hired skinny people for this internship!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from being in the same room , these programmers were barely working together....I 've worked in some crowded office conditions , but absolutely nothing like what is pictured in this article .
There are 10 people crowded into this 1 person office space .
I could see six people fitting into this space humanely - eg without violating the fire code / without personality conflicts / without bumping into each other while working.I guess this is why they only hired skinny people for this internship !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from being in the same room, these programmers were barely working together....I've worked in some crowded office conditions, but absolutely nothing like what is pictured in this article.
There are 10 people crowded into this 1 person office space.
I could see six people fitting into this space humanely - eg without violating the fire code / without personality conflicts / without bumping into each other while working.I guess this is why they only hired skinny people for this internship!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437150</id>
	<title>No. Not.</title>
	<author>geohump</author>
	<datestamp>1268321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No the startup does not claim to have busted the famous "adding manpower to a late project makes it later" rule.</p><p>Why is this different from the scenario Fred Brooks described in his book (and the death marches many of us have experienced)?</p><p>#1 - No critical path dependencies on intern deliverables:<br>The items the interns had to deliver were independent of the main project.  While the functionality was desirable, no part of the mainline project would be held up if that functionality was not delivered.</p><p>#2 - Fixed endpoint.<br>The intern staff had a fixed period of employment. 1 month, no extensions possible. Software projects almost never have a fixed end date.  Yes, they claim to, but the reality is those deadlines are never real.</p><p>#3 Staffing:<br>I'm sorry to have to say this but the caliber of the staffing matters. The competition to get into MIT is one of the most intense in the USA, if not the world. Many people are smart enough to get into MIT, but the ones who make the cut are the ones who have focused on MIT as a goal for years before they ever got there and kept working towards that goal steadily, (or are the 0.000000006\% of the population that are spectacular geniuses). These people are extremely quick at picking up new ideas and concepts and are the type that only have to hear something once, AND, unlike most people in the world, grasp the implications and inferential relationships of what they have been told/given very quickly.   These abilities, combined with MIT's intense technical curriculum which provides both a broad and deep understanding of the underlying technical principles, and an academic environment that requires students to be strongly self-reliant, (most US primary school systems stamp out self reliance rather than enhancing it.) means that the talent pool this startup was drawing on had a superb set of talent, drive, self-initiative, and technical knowledge.</p><p>#4 culture<br>The people recruited into the company shared a common set of experiences with each other and also with a number of the already existing full time staff. This "common culture" meant that they were able to instantly relate to their mentors the rest of the company people.  It allowed a much better level of communication than one will see in a more randomly sourced population.</p><p>There is more to this, and much of it is more complex than I have described here. (no relocation logistics/distractions, no social isolation, existing support group, etc etc etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... ) but I have gone on long enough.</p><p>Please note - none of the above implies perfection or super human abilities of these people, just simple human attributes skewed towards one end of the curve. (And in some cases, really really skewed in their social metrics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) )</p><p>I've met MIT grads who were not able to function outside the academic world and those who were superb and those who were lousy. The above is a general discussion of why the startup was able to do well with this, but does not attempt to cover the true scope of the complexity of the issue.   Remember, this is Slashdot.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No the startup does not claim to have busted the famous " adding manpower to a late project makes it later " rule.Why is this different from the scenario Fred Brooks described in his book ( and the death marches many of us have experienced ) ? # 1 - No critical path dependencies on intern deliverables : The items the interns had to deliver were independent of the main project .
While the functionality was desirable , no part of the mainline project would be held up if that functionality was not delivered. # 2 - Fixed endpoint.The intern staff had a fixed period of employment .
1 month , no extensions possible .
Software projects almost never have a fixed end date .
Yes , they claim to , but the reality is those deadlines are never real. # 3 Staffing : I 'm sorry to have to say this but the caliber of the staffing matters .
The competition to get into MIT is one of the most intense in the USA , if not the world .
Many people are smart enough to get into MIT , but the ones who make the cut are the ones who have focused on MIT as a goal for years before they ever got there and kept working towards that goal steadily , ( or are the 0.000000006 \ % of the population that are spectacular geniuses ) .
These people are extremely quick at picking up new ideas and concepts and are the type that only have to hear something once , AND , unlike most people in the world , grasp the implications and inferential relationships of what they have been told/given very quickly .
These abilities , combined with MIT 's intense technical curriculum which provides both a broad and deep understanding of the underlying technical principles , and an academic environment that requires students to be strongly self-reliant , ( most US primary school systems stamp out self reliance rather than enhancing it .
) means that the talent pool this startup was drawing on had a superb set of talent , drive , self-initiative , and technical knowledge. # 4 cultureThe people recruited into the company shared a common set of experiences with each other and also with a number of the already existing full time staff .
This " common culture " meant that they were able to instantly relate to their mentors the rest of the company people .
It allowed a much better level of communication than one will see in a more randomly sourced population.There is more to this , and much of it is more complex than I have described here .
( no relocation logistics/distractions , no social isolation , existing support group , etc etc etc .... ) but I have gone on long enough.Please note - none of the above implies perfection or super human abilities of these people , just simple human attributes skewed towards one end of the curve .
( And in some cases , really really skewed in their social metrics : - ) ) I 've met MIT grads who were not able to function outside the academic world and those who were superb and those who were lousy .
The above is a general discussion of why the startup was able to do well with this , but does not attempt to cover the true scope of the complexity of the issue .
Remember , this is Slashdot .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the startup does not claim to have busted the famous "adding manpower to a late project makes it later" rule.Why is this different from the scenario Fred Brooks described in his book (and the death marches many of us have experienced)?#1 - No critical path dependencies on intern deliverables:The items the interns had to deliver were independent of the main project.
While the functionality was desirable, no part of the mainline project would be held up if that functionality was not delivered.#2 - Fixed endpoint.The intern staff had a fixed period of employment.
1 month, no extensions possible.
Software projects almost never have a fixed end date.
Yes, they claim to, but the reality is those deadlines are never real.#3 Staffing:I'm sorry to have to say this but the caliber of the staffing matters.
The competition to get into MIT is one of the most intense in the USA, if not the world.
Many people are smart enough to get into MIT, but the ones who make the cut are the ones who have focused on MIT as a goal for years before they ever got there and kept working towards that goal steadily, (or are the 0.000000006\% of the population that are spectacular geniuses).
These people are extremely quick at picking up new ideas and concepts and are the type that only have to hear something once, AND, unlike most people in the world, grasp the implications and inferential relationships of what they have been told/given very quickly.
These abilities, combined with MIT's intense technical curriculum which provides both a broad and deep understanding of the underlying technical principles, and an academic environment that requires students to be strongly self-reliant, (most US primary school systems stamp out self reliance rather than enhancing it.
) means that the talent pool this startup was drawing on had a superb set of talent, drive, self-initiative, and technical knowledge.#4 cultureThe people recruited into the company shared a common set of experiences with each other and also with a number of the already existing full time staff.
This "common culture" meant that they were able to instantly relate to their mentors the rest of the company people.
It allowed a much better level of communication than one will see in a more randomly sourced population.There is more to this, and much of it is more complex than I have described here.
(no relocation logistics/distractions, no social isolation, existing support group, etc etc etc .... ) but I have gone on long enough.Please note - none of the above implies perfection or super human abilities of these people, just simple human attributes skewed towards one end of the curve.
(And in some cases, really really skewed in their social metrics :-) )I've met MIT grads who were not able to function outside the academic world and those who were superb and those who were lousy.
The above is a general discussion of why the startup was able to do well with this, but does not attempt to cover the true scope of the complexity of the issue.
Remember, this is Slashdot.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31451332</id>
	<title>Yeah sure...</title>
	<author>orangenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...now let's wait and see if they can make all the pieces match correctly... This is probably the idea behind PS3 leap year flaw from 2010<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</htmltext>
<tokenext>...now let 's wait and see if they can make all the pieces match correctly... This is probably the idea behind PS3 leap year flaw from 2010 : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...now let's wait and see if they can make all the pieces match correctly... This is probably the idea behind PS3 leap year flaw from 2010 :-D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436364</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268313660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article itself establishes the premise that the work they needed to do was "outside their core technology," which is another way to say "we don't know how to do it, and so we're floundering."</p><p>Hiring 20 college kids who are familiar with the technology you're trying to work on is obviously going to be a huge help.</p><p>Second, they took these steps:</p><p>Know who the best people are and only hire them.<br>Pay well.<br>Divide tasks to be as loosely-coupled as possible.<br>Design your  projects in advance.</p><p>Ok, geniuses. You've figured out how you should be running your company. If companies would just do these things, they would never find themselves in a position where they would be late in the first place.</p><p>Most companies opt for:</p><p>Know who the cheapest people are and hire them.<br>Pay as little as possible.<br>Tightly couple tasks so PMs can some up with daily SPI numbers to satisfy management's constant need to feed on numbers.<br>Design your projects concurrent with executing them to reduce total calendar time, and worry about working in changes after initial release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article itself establishes the premise that the work they needed to do was " outside their core technology , " which is another way to say " we do n't know how to do it , and so we 're floundering .
" Hiring 20 college kids who are familiar with the technology you 're trying to work on is obviously going to be a huge help.Second , they took these steps : Know who the best people are and only hire them.Pay well.Divide tasks to be as loosely-coupled as possible.Design your projects in advance.Ok , geniuses .
You 've figured out how you should be running your company .
If companies would just do these things , they would never find themselves in a position where they would be late in the first place.Most companies opt for : Know who the cheapest people are and hire them.Pay as little as possible.Tightly couple tasks so PMs can some up with daily SPI numbers to satisfy management 's constant need to feed on numbers.Design your projects concurrent with executing them to reduce total calendar time , and worry about working in changes after initial release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article itself establishes the premise that the work they needed to do was "outside their core technology," which is another way to say "we don't know how to do it, and so we're floundering.
"Hiring 20 college kids who are familiar with the technology you're trying to work on is obviously going to be a huge help.Second, they took these steps:Know who the best people are and only hire them.Pay well.Divide tasks to be as loosely-coupled as possible.Design your  projects in advance.Ok, geniuses.
You've figured out how you should be running your company.
If companies would just do these things, they would never find themselves in a position where they would be late in the first place.Most companies opt for:Know who the cheapest people are and hire them.Pay as little as possible.Tightly couple tasks so PMs can some up with daily SPI numbers to satisfy management's constant need to feed on numbers.Design your projects concurrent with executing them to reduce total calendar time, and worry about working in changes after initial release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They all worked on small projects.  Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project.</p></div><p>You're just quibbling about details.  If they can get 40 interns to do 40 small problems quickly, they can certainly get 40 interns to do 10 large problems even faster.  Just like 9 pregnant women can make a baby in one month.  Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They all worked on small projects .
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large , sufficiently complex project.You 're just quibbling about details .
If they can get 40 interns to do 40 small problems quickly , they can certainly get 40 interns to do 10 large problems even faster .
Just like 9 pregnant women can make a baby in one month .
Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule , but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They all worked on small projects.
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project.You're just quibbling about details.
If they can get 40 interns to do 40 small problems quickly, they can certainly get 40 interns to do 10 large problems even faster.
Just like 9 pregnant women can make a baby in one month.
Or they can keep the original 9 month schedule, but pool their efforts to create one super-huge baby.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31441010</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268334780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like they took those tasks that are tedious and not value added but are generally considered part of a developers job and parsed them out to flunkees to do for them.  I would say that about half of my time is spent doing that sort of thing.  And about half of my remaining time is spent trying to avoid doing those things so I can see improving effeciency 4x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like they took those tasks that are tedious and not value added but are generally considered part of a developers job and parsed them out to flunkees to do for them .
I would say that about half of my time is spent doing that sort of thing .
And about half of my remaining time is spent trying to avoid doing those things so I can see improving effeciency 4x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like they took those tasks that are tedious and not value added but are generally considered part of a developers job and parsed them out to flunkees to do for them.
I would say that about half of my time is spent doing that sort of thing.
And about half of my remaining time is spent trying to avoid doing those things so I can see improving effeciency 4x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433876</id>
	<title>On The Other Hand</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       I once worked for a company that hired a few extras to appear as if they were hard at work on computers in order to land a large contract. We only had them set up to look like they were working for one day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once worked for a company that hired a few extras to appear as if they were hard at work on computers in order to land a large contract .
We only had them set up to look like they were working for one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       I once worked for a company that hired a few extras to appear as if they were hard at work on computers in order to land a large contract.
We only had them set up to look like they were working for one day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</id>
	<title>Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you RTFA, they don't really address Brook's point.  They all worked on small projects.  Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project.  The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.</p><p>Besides, in the real engineering world, nobody is going to tolerate the work conditions they describe.  The pay better be 10x what I earn now to pack me in a room with sweaty, overweight 40-somethings.</p><p>It's a cute college experiment and nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you RTFA , they do n't really address Brook 's point .
They all worked on small projects .
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large , sufficiently complex project .
The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.Besides , in the real engineering world , nobody is going to tolerate the work conditions they describe .
The pay better be 10x what I earn now to pack me in a room with sweaty , overweight 40-somethings.It 's a cute college experiment and nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you RTFA, they don't really address Brook's point.
They all worked on small projects.
Where the mythical man-month applies is in the combined effort on a large, sufficiently complex project.
The real breakdown comes in the collaboration and communication.Besides, in the real engineering world, nobody is going to tolerate the work conditions they describe.
The pay better be 10x what I earn now to pack me in a room with sweaty, overweight 40-somethings.It's a cute college experiment and nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436658</id>
	<title>Re:This is MIT, remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268317380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google also produces crappy products.  Solitary projects also can become managed.</p><p>Not sure what techniques out of this experiment could be useful.  It sounds like they just worked on small programs.  Am I missing something there?  Modular programming isn't exactly cutting edge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google also produces crappy products .
Solitary projects also can become managed.Not sure what techniques out of this experiment could be useful .
It sounds like they just worked on small programs .
Am I missing something there ?
Modular programming is n't exactly cutting edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google also produces crappy products.
Solitary projects also can become managed.Not sure what techniques out of this experiment could be useful.
It sounds like they just worked on small programs.
Am I missing something there?
Modular programming isn't exactly cutting edge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434464</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1268241600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely the submitter read the damn article which references the Mythical Man Month, and has never heard of Brooks let alone read the book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely the submitter read the damn article which references the Mythical Man Month , and has never heard of Brooks let alone read the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely the submitter read the damn article which references the Mythical Man Month, and has never heard of Brooks let alone read the book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435704</id>
	<title>Is this battery software farming?</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268302500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laying aside their task actually is parallelizable, are they suggesting battery software farming is a solution? I don't want to work like that! No, I think freerange organic software farming is best.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laying aside their task actually is parallelizable , are they suggesting battery software farming is a solution ?
I do n't want to work like that !
No , I think freerange organic software farming is best .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laying aside their task actually is parallelizable, are they suggesting battery software farming is a solution?
I don't want to work like that!
No, I think freerange organic software farming is best.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433502</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268231340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>College kids claim to know it all.</p><p>Yes, it may be MIT. However let's see what happens AFTER you graduate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>College kids claim to know it all.Yes , it may be MIT .
However let 's see what happens AFTER you graduate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>College kids claim to know it all.Yes, it may be MIT.
However let's see what happens AFTER you graduate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434346</id>
	<title>Re:9 women and the baby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268240160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>"9 women can't make a baby in 1 month"</em> </p><p>Ah, yes, 1 baby per month is what you would expect for the classical case, but if we model the baby as a particle in a time box we actually expect 2/9*sin^2(n*pi*t/9) babies.

</p><p>Some people just don't stop to think about the realism of their model!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 9 women ca n't make a baby in 1 month " Ah , yes , 1 baby per month is what you would expect for the classical case , but if we model the baby as a particle in a time box we actually expect 2/9 * sin ^ 2 ( n * pi * t/9 ) babies .
Some people just do n't stop to think about the realism of their model !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month" Ah, yes, 1 baby per month is what you would expect for the classical case, but if we model the baby as a particle in a time box we actually expect 2/9*sin^2(n*pi*t/9) babies.
Some people just don't stop to think about the realism of their model!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435004</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268249280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Decomposition<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and from TFA, "every intern successfully completed their project" - translation = no bad apples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decomposition ...and from TFA , " every intern successfully completed their project " - translation = no bad apples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decomposition ...and from TFA, "every intern successfully completed their project" - translation = no bad apples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435364</id>
	<title>Not representative</title>
	<author>jevring</author>
	<datestamp>1268340960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if the interns hadn't been working on multiple parallel projects, as have been pointed out my many already, since when does anecdotal evidence constitute proof?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the interns had n't been working on multiple parallel projects , as have been pointed out my many already , since when does anecdotal evidence constitute proof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the interns hadn't been working on multiple parallel projects, as have been pointed out my many already, since when does anecdotal evidence constitute proof?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433978</id>
	<title>Re:10 years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it a (n(n-1))/2 proposition? Where the fuck do you get 2^n? That's just retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it a ( n ( n-1 ) ) /2 proposition ?
Where the fuck do you get 2 ^ n ?
That 's just retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it a (n(n-1))/2 proposition?
Where the fuck do you get 2^n?
That's just retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31439590</id>
	<title>They read Kawasaki as well as Brooks</title>
	<author>Infonaut</author>
	<datestamp>1268329440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of Guy Kawasaki's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy\_Kawasaki" title="wikipedia.org">[bio]</a> [wikipedia.org] marketing mantras is that it pays off to pick a fight. In this case they didn't pick a fight with a competitor, but they did compare themselves favorably to Brooks. Everyone in computing knows about The Mythical Man-Month. What better way to get yourselves in front of the tech crowd than to point out that you grok the lessons of The Mythical Man-Month, but you've found a way around them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of Guy Kawasaki 's [ bio ] [ wikipedia.org ] marketing mantras is that it pays off to pick a fight .
In this case they did n't pick a fight with a competitor , but they did compare themselves favorably to Brooks .
Everyone in computing knows about The Mythical Man-Month .
What better way to get yourselves in front of the tech crowd than to point out that you grok the lessons of The Mythical Man-Month , but you 've found a way around them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of Guy Kawasaki's [bio] [wikipedia.org] marketing mantras is that it pays off to pick a fight.
In this case they didn't pick a fight with a competitor, but they did compare themselves favorably to Brooks.
Everyone in computing knows about The Mythical Man-Month.
What better way to get yourselves in front of the tech crowd than to point out that you grok the lessons of The Mythical Man-Month, but you've found a way around them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434100</id>
	<title>Don't forget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268237520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>all projects have a point of diminishing returns.<br>The key to limiting, or exasperating this problem is good or bad project management.<br>Of course, if the 'project' is a large series of little projects that don't have dependency on each other, you can greatly increase personnel easily, such as the people in this argument.<br>They didn't really bust the myth, rather they used a situation where they didn't exceed the number of optimal personnel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>all projects have a point of diminishing returns.The key to limiting , or exasperating this problem is good or bad project management.Of course , if the 'project ' is a large series of little projects that do n't have dependency on each other , you can greatly increase personnel easily , such as the people in this argument.They did n't really bust the myth , rather they used a situation where they did n't exceed the number of optimal personnel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all projects have a point of diminishing returns.The key to limiting, or exasperating this problem is good or bad project management.Of course, if the 'project' is a large series of little projects that don't have dependency on each other, you can greatly increase personnel easily, such as the people in this argument.They didn't really bust the myth, rather they used a situation where they didn't exceed the number of optimal personnel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433460</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps they deliberately chose the title to get people to link to their start-up's blog?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps they deliberately chose the title to get people to link to their start-up 's blog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps they deliberately chose the title to get people to link to their start-up's blog?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434790</id>
	<title>So tired</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1268246160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that as mythical moth man myth busted, and naturally I was like wtf?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as mythical moth man myth busted , and naturally I was like wtf ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as mythical moth man myth busted, and naturally I was like wtf?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435430</id>
	<title>Re:MIT holiday month</title>
	<author>jketch</author>
	<datestamp>1268298240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a beaver, you're a beaver, we are beavers all
<br>
And when we get together we do the beaver call</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a beaver , you 're a beaver , we are beavers all And when we get together we do the beaver call</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a beaver, you're a beaver, we are beavers all

And when we get together we do the beaver call</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437482</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268323440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>your team <em>can not</em> scale</p></div><p>Right, they can scale, or they can not scale: I agree completely. Oh, wait, did you mean "cannot"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your team can not scaleRight , they can scale , or they can not scale : I agree completely .
Oh , wait , did you mean " can not " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your team can not scaleRight, they can scale, or they can not scale: I agree completely.
Oh, wait, did you mean "cannot"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434602</id>
	<title>The old adage goes...</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1268243220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on TV.<br> <br>

I guess the updated version of that would be: never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on blogs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on TV .
I guess the updated version of that would be : never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on blogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on TV.
I guess the updated version of that would be: never hire anyone that went to a university that advertises on blogs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434648</id>
	<title>Re:The Mythical Commenter-Post</title>
	<author>Stele</author>
	<datestamp>1268243940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber.</i></p><p>That's a MYTH??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber.That 's a MYTH ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber.That's a MYTH?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433454</id>
	<title>The MM-M is more what you'd call a guideline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>than an actual rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>than an actual rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than an actual rule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433436</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing."</p><p>Exaclty I'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project.   I've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it's disturbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In other words : they had an " embarrassingly parallel " problem and did the obviously right thing .
" Exaclty I 'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project .
I 've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it 's disturbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing.
"Exaclty I'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project.
I've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it's disturbing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437906</id>
	<title>Relating to Open Source?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1268324700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me see if I get this right:</p><p>Brooks is saying that you should let everybody look at source code, due do Linus' Law (bug shallowness goes to 100\% for eyeballs going to 6e9).</p><p>Parnas is saying that you should encapsulate things behind loosely coupled interfaces.</p><p>And you're saying "if everyone <b>has to know</b> what everyone else is working on [...]"</p><p>And then I'm saying there's a difference between <b>having</b> to know the innards of a module, and <b>being allowed</b> to know said innards.</p><p>I also think being allowed to know---without having to---is what makes open source software what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me see if I get this right : Brooks is saying that you should let everybody look at source code , due do Linus ' Law ( bug shallowness goes to 100 \ % for eyeballs going to 6e9 ) .Parnas is saying that you should encapsulate things behind loosely coupled interfaces.And you 're saying " if everyone has to know what everyone else is working on [ ... ] " And then I 'm saying there 's a difference between having to know the innards of a module , and being allowed to know said innards.I also think being allowed to know---without having to---is what makes open source software what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me see if I get this right:Brooks is saying that you should let everybody look at source code, due do Linus' Law (bug shallowness goes to 100\% for eyeballs going to 6e9).Parnas is saying that you should encapsulate things behind loosely coupled interfaces.And you're saying "if everyone has to know what everyone else is working on [...]"And then I'm saying there's a difference between having to know the innards of a module, and being allowed to know said innards.I also think being allowed to know---without having to---is what makes open source software what it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433468</id>
	<title>Can it really be true?</title>
	<author>willow</author>
	<datestamp>1268230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean hiring awesome staff to work on independent projects designed in advance breaks Brooks Law?</p><p>Genius! Pat yourself on the back some more.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean hiring awesome staff to work on independent projects designed in advance breaks Brooks Law ? Genius !
Pat yourself on the back some more .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean hiring awesome staff to work on independent projects designed in advance breaks Brooks Law?Genius!
Pat yourself on the back some more.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434682</id>
	<title>Easy one guys... come on...</title>
	<author>HuckleCom</author>
	<datestamp>1268244480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>19 went to various meetings to generate a 'spec'...
1 did the programming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>19 went to various meetings to generate a 'spec'.. . 1 did the programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>19 went to various meetings to generate a 'spec'...
1 did the programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31440254</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>oneiros27</author>
	<datestamp>1268331900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, they're college students, so they're at most 20-somethings.  And it might not be that bad, but from experience, if you're working with the right type of people, you don't need nearly as much space as people think you do.</p><p>And if you hire a bunch of 20-something females, I'm guessing there's a few programmers that might be willing to take a pay cut to be packed into a room with them, so long as they're only overweight and not completely obese.  (at least, by the scale that the Wii Fit uses)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , they 're college students , so they 're at most 20-somethings .
And it might not be that bad , but from experience , if you 're working with the right type of people , you do n't need nearly as much space as people think you do.And if you hire a bunch of 20-something females , I 'm guessing there 's a few programmers that might be willing to take a pay cut to be packed into a room with them , so long as they 're only overweight and not completely obese .
( at least , by the scale that the Wii Fit uses )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, they're college students, so they're at most 20-somethings.
And it might not be that bad, but from experience, if you're working with the right type of people, you don't need nearly as much space as people think you do.And if you hire a bunch of 20-something females, I'm guessing there's a few programmers that might be willing to take a pay cut to be packed into a room with them, so long as they're only overweight and not completely obese.
(at least, by the scale that the Wii Fit uses)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434060</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268237220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O x 4 = 0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O x 4 = 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O x 4 = 0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434156</id>
	<title>Subjective myth, cannot be busted</title>
	<author>101010\_or\_0x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1268238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is such a subjective myth, and is more a general understanding in software development than a rule. Its impossible to "bust" this, the article is ridiculous and the title even more so. Incidentally, today I just busted the "all managers are technically incompetent morons" myth by writing an awesome piece of code...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is such a subjective myth , and is more a general understanding in software development than a rule .
Its impossible to " bust " this , the article is ridiculous and the title even more so .
Incidentally , today I just busted the " all managers are technically incompetent morons " myth by writing an awesome piece of code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is such a subjective myth, and is more a general understanding in software development than a rule.
Its impossible to "bust" this, the article is ridiculous and the title even more so.
Incidentally, today I just busted the "all managers are technically incompetent morons" myth by writing an awesome piece of code...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433524</id>
	<title>Doesn't negate Brook's adage at all</title>
	<author>sizzzzlerz</author>
	<datestamp>1268231640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put these same kids on an existing program that is a year late and already has a team of 20 programmers working on it. Get back to me in 6 months telling me just how fine things are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put these same kids on an existing program that is a year late and already has a team of 20 programmers working on it .
Get back to me in 6 months telling me just how fine things are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put these same kids on an existing program that is a year late and already has a team of 20 programmers working on it.
Get back to me in 6 months telling me just how fine things are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433850</id>
	<title>The ORIGINAL development project</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1268234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to get nine women to have a baby in a month, and all I got was bitch slapped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to get nine women to have a baby in a month , and all I got was bitch slapped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to get nine women to have a baby in a month, and all I got was bitch slapped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436920</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. do not forget Neworder.box.sk, or hackaday.com, or the phoronix guys! All very valuable places to get your *nix info!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. do not forget Neworder.box.sk , or hackaday.com , or the phoronix guys !
All very valuable places to get your * nix info !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. do not forget Neworder.box.sk, or hackaday.com, or the phoronix guys!
All very valuable places to get your *nix info!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433492</id>
	<title>They didn't add to a late project</title>
	<author>MMORG</author>
	<datestamp>1268231160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't add programmers to a late project, they added programmers to a bunch of small, self-contained projects that hadn't been started yet.  That's a very different thing.</p><p>The point of Fred Brook's argument is that if you take a project that's already late, that means it already has systemic problems of one type or another (or likely, several types at once).  Adding bodies without solving the systemic problems just makes those problems grow, not go away.  That's not the situation this company had and that's not what they did.  Saying they "busted the mythical man-month" is just trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't add programmers to a late project , they added programmers to a bunch of small , self-contained projects that had n't been started yet .
That 's a very different thing.The point of Fred Brook 's argument is that if you take a project that 's already late , that means it already has systemic problems of one type or another ( or likely , several types at once ) .
Adding bodies without solving the systemic problems just makes those problems grow , not go away .
That 's not the situation this company had and that 's not what they did .
Saying they " busted the mythical man-month " is just trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't add programmers to a late project, they added programmers to a bunch of small, self-contained projects that hadn't been started yet.
That's a very different thing.The point of Fred Brook's argument is that if you take a project that's already late, that means it already has systemic problems of one type or another (or likely, several types at once).
Adding bodies without solving the systemic problems just makes those problems grow, not go away.
That's not the situation this company had and that's not what they did.
Saying they "busted the mythical man-month" is just trolling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</id>
	<title>!MMM</title>
	<author>seanadams.com</author>
	<datestamp>1268230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from being in the same room, these programmers were barely working together. This was NOT an attempt to accelerate a single, large, overdue project (the Mythical Man Month problem) - and they explicitly say so! I wonder if the submitter even read the book, or just heard the title somewhere and thought it was a catchy buzz phrase.<blockquote><div><p> <i>Give interns loosely-coupled projects. Our internship program would never have worked if we had assigned a dozen new people to hack on our kernel code--the training time and communication costs that drive Brooks' Law would have swallowed their efforts whole. Fortunately, like any growing business, we had a constellation of projects that lie around the edges of our core technology: infrastructure upgrades, additional layers of QA, business analytics, and new features in the management side of our product. Few of these had elaborate technical interfaces with any of our existing software, so our interns were able to become productive with minimal ramp-up and rely on relatively little communication to get their projects done.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from being in the same room , these programmers were barely working together .
This was NOT an attempt to accelerate a single , large , overdue project ( the Mythical Man Month problem ) - and they explicitly say so !
I wonder if the submitter even read the book , or just heard the title somewhere and thought it was a catchy buzz phrase .
Give interns loosely-coupled projects .
Our internship program would never have worked if we had assigned a dozen new people to hack on our kernel code--the training time and communication costs that drive Brooks ' Law would have swallowed their efforts whole .
Fortunately , like any growing business , we had a constellation of projects that lie around the edges of our core technology : infrastructure upgrades , additional layers of QA , business analytics , and new features in the management side of our product .
Few of these had elaborate technical interfaces with any of our existing software , so our interns were able to become productive with minimal ramp-up and rely on relatively little communication to get their projects done .
In other words : they had an " embarrassingly parallel " problem and did the obviously right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from being in the same room, these programmers were barely working together.
This was NOT an attempt to accelerate a single, large, overdue project (the Mythical Man Month problem) - and they explicitly say so!
I wonder if the submitter even read the book, or just heard the title somewhere and thought it was a catchy buzz phrase.
Give interns loosely-coupled projects.
Our internship program would never have worked if we had assigned a dozen new people to hack on our kernel code--the training time and communication costs that drive Brooks' Law would have swallowed their efforts whole.
Fortunately, like any growing business, we had a constellation of projects that lie around the edges of our core technology: infrastructure upgrades, additional layers of QA, business analytics, and new features in the management side of our product.
Few of these had elaborate technical interfaces with any of our existing software, so our interns were able to become productive with minimal ramp-up and rely on relatively little communication to get their projects done.
In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434146</id>
	<title>Diminishing rate of return</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1268238240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be able to increase productivity the more people you add. However,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing\_returns" title="wikipedia.org"> the return gets smaller and smaller</a> [wikipedia.org] as you add more people.</p><p>Think of a McDonalds. If you walk into one with only 2 people working you would end up with slow crappy service. Three would be ALOT better as one can man you, the cash registers, and the drive thru. Four workers would be a nice increase, five would be ok I guess, 6 would not bring "your burger much faster, by the time 7 and 8 go in you would not see much improvement, etc.</p><p>With add more workers to a complex project it would appear that a negative return and more delays would happen. This is because even the most hardcore programmers will need help to understand the project and not scew it up with their code. My guess is you would see a negative graph and then a bump up later with each new programmer. Notice results only quadrupled and did go up 20x?</p><p>Something like Linux would be a nightmare for even the best C hackers to understand within a month or two without special training. Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 would be only a few hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be able to increase productivity the more people you add .
However , the return gets smaller and smaller [ wikipedia.org ] as you add more people.Think of a McDonalds .
If you walk into one with only 2 people working you would end up with slow crappy service .
Three would be ALOT better as one can man you , the cash registers , and the drive thru .
Four workers would be a nice increase , five would be ok I guess , 6 would not bring " your burger much faster , by the time 7 and 8 go in you would not see much improvement , etc.With add more workers to a complex project it would appear that a negative return and more delays would happen .
This is because even the most hardcore programmers will need help to understand the project and not scew it up with their code .
My guess is you would see a negative graph and then a bump up later with each new programmer .
Notice results only quadrupled and did go up 20x ? Something like Linux would be a nightmare for even the best C hackers to understand within a month or two without special training .
Linux .1 would be only a few hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be able to increase productivity the more people you add.
However, the return gets smaller and smaller [wikipedia.org] as you add more people.Think of a McDonalds.
If you walk into one with only 2 people working you would end up with slow crappy service.
Three would be ALOT better as one can man you, the cash registers, and the drive thru.
Four workers would be a nice increase, five would be ok I guess, 6 would not bring "your burger much faster, by the time 7 and 8 go in you would not see much improvement, etc.With add more workers to a complex project it would appear that a negative return and more delays would happen.
This is because even the most hardcore programmers will need help to understand the project and not scew it up with their code.
My guess is you would see a negative graph and then a bump up later with each new programmer.
Notice results only quadrupled and did go up 20x?Something like Linux would be a nightmare for even the best C hackers to understand within a month or two without special training.
Linux .1 would be only a few hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434508</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268242080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, they must have changed the rules and allowed people to comment with out reading the article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , they must have changed the rules and allowed people to comment with out reading the article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, they must have changed the rules and allowed people to comment with out reading the article</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433776</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>xTantrum</author>
	<datestamp>1268234100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason this "worked" is because the college interns were afraid for their positions and wanted to make a good impression. Like Monica Lewinsky They sucked di**k to keep their positions. I'm not trying to troll, just saying that use those same college interns after being on the job for a couple months/years and your productivity dives. seriously folks let's be real.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason this " worked " is because the college interns were afraid for their positions and wanted to make a good impression .
Like Monica Lewinsky They sucked di * * k to keep their positions .
I 'm not trying to troll , just saying that use those same college interns after being on the job for a couple months/years and your productivity dives .
seriously folks let 's be real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason this "worked" is because the college interns were afraid for their positions and wanted to make a good impression.
Like Monica Lewinsky They sucked di**k to keep their positions.
I'm not trying to troll, just saying that use those same college interns after being on the job for a couple months/years and your productivity dives.
seriously folks let's be real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435626</id>
	<title>1 office</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1268301360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They got it done in one month because they were all crammed into <b>one</b> office.  They wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They got it done in one month because they were all crammed into one office .
They wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got it done in one month because they were all crammed into one office.
They wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434592</id>
	<title>So Wrong</title>
	<author>JonSimons</author>
	<datestamp>1268243160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Others have already pointed out how absolutely retarded this is, and have explained how "Brooke's Law" has not in any way been understood.
<br>
Large project productivity does not scale linearly with the number of developers working on it.
<br>
It's not \_just\_ communication, either.  Large software is complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Others have already pointed out how absolutely retarded this is , and have explained how " Brooke 's Law " has not in any way been understood .
Large project productivity does not scale linearly with the number of developers working on it .
It 's not \ _just \ _ communication , either .
Large software is complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others have already pointed out how absolutely retarded this is, and have explained how "Brooke's Law" has not in any way been understood.
Large project productivity does not scale linearly with the number of developers working on it.
It's not \_just\_ communication, either.
Large software is complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435078</id>
	<title>Re:This is MIT, remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268250420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how over-managing a bad programmer somehow magically makes their code good</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how over-managing a bad programmer somehow magically makes their code good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how over-managing a bad programmer somehow magically makes their code good</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31446810</id>
	<title>OKAY so here is the challenge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268312700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I challenge these nitwits to hire 40 women, no, wait, they can hire an unlimited number of women, and produce a full term baby - from conception to full birth - in one week.<br>Good luck. Ain't gonna happen. I've been in all parts of IT for 30 years.<br>I'll bet if you dig deep enough, you'll find some corporation paid for this study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I challenge these nitwits to hire 40 women , no , wait , they can hire an unlimited number of women , and produce a full term baby - from conception to full birth - in one week.Good luck .
Ai n't gon na happen .
I 've been in all parts of IT for 30 years.I 'll bet if you dig deep enough , you 'll find some corporation paid for this study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I challenge these nitwits to hire 40 women, no, wait, they can hire an unlimited number of women, and produce a full term baby - from conception to full birth - in one week.Good luck.
Ain't gonna happen.
I've been in all parts of IT for 30 years.I'll bet if you dig deep enough, you'll find some corporation paid for this study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433476</id>
	<title>MIT holiday month</title>
	<author>asolidvoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW, the MIT "holiday month" described here is a sort of inter-session called IAP (Independent Activities Period), and is expressly intended for students to do this sort of thing.  Or go to charm school, either way....

Go Beavers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , the MIT " holiday month " described here is a sort of inter-session called IAP ( Independent Activities Period ) , and is expressly intended for students to do this sort of thing .
Or go to charm school , either way... . Go Beavers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, the MIT "holiday month" described here is a sort of inter-session called IAP (Independent Activities Period), and is expressly intended for students to do this sort of thing.
Or go to charm school, either way....

Go Beavers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433434</id>
	<title>No Indians on their team.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no wonder they succeeded. There were no offshore Indian developers on their team to fuck things up!</p><p>Team photo: <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ksplice-iap-21.jpg" title="ksplice.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.ksplice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ksplice-iap-21.jpg</a> [ksplice.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no wonder they succeeded .
There were no offshore Indian developers on their team to fuck things up ! Team photo : http : //blog.ksplice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ksplice-iap-21.jpg [ ksplice.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no wonder they succeeded.
There were no offshore Indian developers on their team to fuck things up!Team photo: http://blog.ksplice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ksplice-iap-21.jpg [ksplice.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434736</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>pthisis</author>
	<datestamp>1268245500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even there, they didn't come anywhere close to disproving Brooks' theory.</p><p>If you throw 20 programmers at a task, the square root of 20 is 4.472+.  They got a factor of 4 (at best) improvement.  To even begin to claim that productivity improves with the number of programmers (modulo a constant), they'd need to beat that square root.</p><p>They failed.  The numbers they're quoting are certainly inconclusive, but in a vacuum they support a sub-linear improvement (the Brooks hypothesis), they don't refute it.</p><p>Certainly there could be a very small constant where these results are inline with a non-Brooksian conclusion, but in a vacuum they're more likely in line with a Brooksian hypothesis than any theory of linear scaling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even there , they did n't come anywhere close to disproving Brooks ' theory.If you throw 20 programmers at a task , the square root of 20 is 4.472 + .
They got a factor of 4 ( at best ) improvement .
To even begin to claim that productivity improves with the number of programmers ( modulo a constant ) , they 'd need to beat that square root.They failed .
The numbers they 're quoting are certainly inconclusive , but in a vacuum they support a sub-linear improvement ( the Brooks hypothesis ) , they do n't refute it.Certainly there could be a very small constant where these results are inline with a non-Brooksian conclusion , but in a vacuum they 're more likely in line with a Brooksian hypothesis than any theory of linear scaling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even there, they didn't come anywhere close to disproving Brooks' theory.If you throw 20 programmers at a task, the square root of 20 is 4.472+.
They got a factor of 4 (at best) improvement.
To even begin to claim that productivity improves with the number of programmers (modulo a constant), they'd need to beat that square root.They failed.
The numbers they're quoting are certainly inconclusive, but in a vacuum they support a sub-linear improvement (the Brooks hypothesis), they don't refute it.Certainly there could be a very small constant where these results are inline with a non-Brooksian conclusion, but in a vacuum they're more likely in line with a Brooksian hypothesis than any theory of linear scaling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435920</id>
	<title>So easy...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268306160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just have to hire 20 good interns from MIT, so easy... I wonder why everyone isn't doing that ?<br>
Sigh...<br>
Maybe the biggest mistake in the man-month is to believe than any (wo)man can replace any other hence, the cheapest the better. That's the point I see busted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just have to hire 20 good interns from MIT , so easy... I wonder why everyone is n't doing that ?
Sigh.. . Maybe the biggest mistake in the man-month is to believe than any ( wo ) man can replace any other hence , the cheapest the better .
That 's the point I see busted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just have to hire 20 good interns from MIT, so easy... I wonder why everyone isn't doing that ?
Sigh...
Maybe the biggest mistake in the man-month is to believe than any (wo)man can replace any other hence, the cheapest the better.
That's the point I see busted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433546</id>
	<title>The Mythical Commenter-Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We also know about the Mythical Commenter-Post, the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We also know about the Mythical Commenter-Post , the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also know about the Mythical Commenter-Post, the argument that adding more commenters to a thread just makes the posts dumber and dumber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31447940</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>portforward</author>
	<datestamp>1268320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, that was FUNNY!  If I wore a hat, I would remove it in respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , that was FUNNY !
If I wore a hat , I would remove it in respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, that was FUNNY!
If I wore a hat, I would remove it in respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434154</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1268238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really a surprise that hiring the best and brightest yielded the best returns?<br> <br>

So far as management is concerned, YES, break the project into modular, independent tasks.<br>

A former engineer (ie: biomedical, computer, hardware, electronics, NOT SOFTWARE (does this count as anything other than a glorified developer position) ) runs the team rather than a liberal arts major/dropout (is there a difference???) running this project), sweeeeeet!

<br> <br>It's amazing, the prejudice against intelligent people. Populism at work/at it's "rights".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really a surprise that hiring the best and brightest yielded the best returns ?
So far as management is concerned , YES , break the project into modular , independent tasks .
A former engineer ( ie : biomedical , computer , hardware , electronics , NOT SOFTWARE ( does this count as anything other than a glorified developer position ) ) runs the team rather than a liberal arts major/dropout ( is there a difference ? ? ?
) running this project ) , sweeeeeet !
It 's amazing , the prejudice against intelligent people .
Populism at work/at it 's " rights " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really a surprise that hiring the best and brightest yielded the best returns?
So far as management is concerned, YES, break the project into modular, independent tasks.
A former engineer (ie: biomedical, computer, hardware, electronics, NOT SOFTWARE (does this count as anything other than a glorified developer position) ) runs the team rather than a liberal arts major/dropout (is there a difference???
) running this project), sweeeeeet!
It's amazing, the prejudice against intelligent people.
Populism at work/at it's "rights".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433562</id>
	<title>Where am I?  Digg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268232060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did this kind of crap show up on Slashdot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this kind of crap show up on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this kind of crap show up on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434664</id>
	<title>Re:10 years ago</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1268244180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132, no long after it lost more than half the value.  The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Reminds me of the guy who explained fifteen years ago why the Internet wasn't going to change anything, online shopping wasn't going anywhere, newspapers had nothing to fear, etc.</p><p>There are two kinds of idiots in the world.  The ones who think the old rules no longer apply, and those who think the rules never change.  Hindsight always allows us to point out half the idiots, but the other half escape detection until further events come along...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132 , no long after it lost more than half the value .
The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied .
...Reminds me of the guy who explained fifteen years ago why the Internet was n't going to change anything , online shopping was n't going anywhere , newspapers had nothing to fear , etc.There are two kinds of idiots in the world .
The ones who think the old rules no longer apply , and those who think the rules never change .
Hindsight always allows us to point out half the idiots , but the other half escape detection until further events come along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago the NASDAQ reached 5132, no long after it lost more than half the value.
The reason was that people believed the rules no longer applied.
...Reminds me of the guy who explained fifteen years ago why the Internet wasn't going to change anything, online shopping wasn't going anywhere, newspapers had nothing to fear, etc.There are two kinds of idiots in the world.
The ones who think the old rules no longer apply, and those who think the rules never change.
Hindsight always allows us to point out half the idiots, but the other half escape detection until further events come along...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433938</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misses the point</title>
	<author>edmudama</author>
	<datestamp>1268235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  From TFA:</p><p>"had a growing queue of important engineering projects outside of our core technology"</p><p>outside the core technology is the important part</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
From TFA : " had a growing queue of important engineering projects outside of our core technology " outside the core technology is the important part</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
From TFA:"had a growing queue of important engineering projects outside of our core technology"outside the core technology is the important part</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433498</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>igny</author>
	<datestamp>1268231280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth,</i> <br> <br>
No they didn't. The communication cost remained O(n^2), they just improved the constant multiplier, not the order. To actually bust the MM theory, they should have quadrupled a couple times more, and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth , No they did n't .
The communication cost remained O ( n ^ 2 ) , they just improved the constant multiplier , not the order .
To actually bust the MM theory , they should have quadrupled a couple times more , and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Linux startup out of MIT claims to have busted the myth,  
No they didn't.
The communication cost remained O(n^2), they just improved the constant multiplier, not the order.
To actually bust the MM theory, they should have quadrupled a couple times more, and see whether the productivity going down the drain or is as scalable as they claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436024</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>ferrgle</author>
	<datestamp>1268308020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah and they have stopped reporting on System Administrator Appreciation Day <a href="http://www.sysadminday.co.uk/" title="sysadminday.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.sysadminday.co.uk/</a> [sysadminday.co.uk]. Which is the most important day of the year! I wouldn't mind so much if people knew about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah and they have stopped reporting on System Administrator Appreciation Day http : //www.sysadminday.co.uk/ [ sysadminday.co.uk ] .
Which is the most important day of the year !
I would n't mind so much if people knew about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah and they have stopped reporting on System Administrator Appreciation Day http://www.sysadminday.co.uk/ [sysadminday.co.uk].
Which is the most important day of the year!
I wouldn't mind so much if people knew about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433564</id>
	<title>Niice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268232120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it bad that all I could think when reading the article and looking at the posted picture, was man I really wouldn't mind "writing some code" with the lady to the far left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it bad that all I could think when reading the article and looking at the posted picture , was man I really would n't mind " writing some code " with the lady to the far left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it bad that all I could think when reading the article and looking at the posted picture, was man I really wouldn't mind "writing some code" with the lady to the far left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436906</id>
	<title>"anonymous reader " is an idiot</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1268319540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The submitter clearly never read The Mythical Man-Month. He doesn't even seem to realise that it's a <strong>book</strong>, not a theory. It talks about quite a few things, mostly in the realm of software project management. This is not really something that can be "busted".

</p><p>What he seems to be talking about is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">Brook's Law</a> [wikipedia.org]: "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later". Now when a contributor like "anonymous reader" starts off being this totally wrong about something what are the odds of the rest being worthwhile?

</p><p>Well, if you bet on "yes", you were wrong. The link provided has absoultely nothing to do with adding manpower to a late software project. Heck, there's not even a single project in question. They just hired a bunch of kids to work on different projects at the same time in the same room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The submitter clearly never read The Mythical Man-Month .
He does n't even seem to realise that it 's a book , not a theory .
It talks about quite a few things , mostly in the realm of software project management .
This is not really something that can be " busted " .
What he seems to be talking about is Brook 's Law [ wikipedia.org ] : " adding manpower to a late software project makes it later " .
Now when a contributor like " anonymous reader " starts off being this totally wrong about something what are the odds of the rest being worthwhile ?
Well , if you bet on " yes " , you were wrong .
The link provided has absoultely nothing to do with adding manpower to a late software project .
Heck , there 's not even a single project in question .
They just hired a bunch of kids to work on different projects at the same time in the same room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The submitter clearly never read The Mythical Man-Month.
He doesn't even seem to realise that it's a book, not a theory.
It talks about quite a few things, mostly in the realm of software project management.
This is not really something that can be "busted".
What he seems to be talking about is Brook's Law [wikipedia.org]: "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later".
Now when a contributor like "anonymous reader" starts off being this totally wrong about something what are the odds of the rest being worthwhile?
Well, if you bet on "yes", you were wrong.
The link provided has absoultely nothing to do with adding manpower to a late software project.
Heck, there's not even a single project in question.
They just hired a bunch of kids to work on different projects at the same time in the same room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435308</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You expect people to read the article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You expect people to read the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You expect people to read the article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433642</id>
	<title>Embarrassing parallelism</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268232900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing.</p></div><p>Yes, they split the problem up into numerous tiny atomic work units to be handled simultaneously by 20 threads, and then had each intern write one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words : they had an " embarrassingly parallel " problem and did the obviously right thing.Yes , they split the problem up into numerous tiny atomic work units to be handled simultaneously by 20 threads , and then had each intern write one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words: they had an "embarrassingly parallel" problem and did the obviously right thing.Yes, they split the problem up into numerous tiny atomic work units to be handled simultaneously by 20 threads, and then had each intern write one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434362</id>
	<title>...but it still makes a late project later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268240400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paraphrase of Brooks famous phrase omits a critical element: adding more people makes a \_late\_ project \_later\_.  Therefore, Brooks' maxim does not apply to projects that originate with a large number of people.  This also explains why the success of open source projects with a large number of developers is not a contradiction: no one is added to meet a deadline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paraphrase of Brooks famous phrase omits a critical element : adding more people makes a \ _late \ _ project \ _later \ _ .
Therefore , Brooks ' maxim does not apply to projects that originate with a large number of people .
This also explains why the success of open source projects with a large number of developers is not a contradiction : no one is added to meet a deadline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paraphrase of Brooks famous phrase omits a critical element: adding more people makes a \_late\_ project \_later\_.
Therefore, Brooks' maxim does not apply to projects that originate with a large number of people.
This also explains why the success of open source projects with a large number of developers is not a contradiction: no one is added to meet a deadline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434520</id>
	<title>I see...</title>
	<author>TaggartAleslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1268242200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own the book, but I have not read it.</p><p>I am off to found an MIT startup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own the book , but I have not read it.I am off to found an MIT startup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own the book, but I have not read it.I am off to found an MIT startup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435850</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>cuby</author>
	<datestamp>1268304900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. Slashdot quality is clearly degrading for some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Slashdot quality is clearly degrading for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Slashdot quality is clearly degrading for some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434012</id>
	<title>Re:!MMM</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268236500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. They didn't add people to a late project, they got more people and put them on un-manned projects to get them going. That's quite a different matter and not what Brooks was talking about. And yes, they did the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
They did n't add people to a late project , they got more people and put them on un-manned projects to get them going .
That 's quite a different matter and not what Brooks was talking about .
And yes , they did the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
They didn't add people to a late project, they got more people and put them on un-manned projects to get them going.
That's quite a different matter and not what Brooks was talking about.
And yes, they did the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31440254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31449330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31447940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31441010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2327236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31440254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31447940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31436888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31441010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31437072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31449330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31435196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31433876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2327236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2327236.31434390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
