<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_2316217</id>
	<title>Programming the Commodore 64: the Definitive Guide</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268480520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:slashdot@miketaylor.org.uk" rel="nofollow">Mirk</a> writes <i>"Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came burned into the ROMs (even if it was only Microsoft BASIC).  The Reinvigorated Programmer <a href="http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/programming-books-part-3-programming-the-commodore-64/">revisits R. C. West's classic and exhaustive book Programming the Commodore 64</a> and laments the decline of that sort of comprehensive Deep Knowing."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirk writes " Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer , from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came burned into the ROMs ( even if it was only Microsoft BASIC ) .
The Reinvigorated Programmer revisits R. C. West 's classic and exhaustive book Programming the Commodore 64 and laments the decline of that sort of comprehensive Deep Knowing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirk writes "Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came burned into the ROMs (even if it was only Microsoft BASIC).
The Reinvigorated Programmer revisits R. C. West's classic and exhaustive book Programming the Commodore 64 and laments the decline of that sort of comprehensive Deep Knowing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471288</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1268569800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.</p></div><p>Enter <a href="http://www.radiks.net/~jimbo/art/c643.htm" title="radiks.net">Blazin' Forth</a> [radiks.net] for C64: Disk-based Forth system, rather fast, with incremental compiler for interactive development, assembly integration... The author was giving it away in the 80's. The fact that the Micro-Soft (;-)) BASIC V2.0 was a piece of crap and that batch assembly tools were useless does not mean that there was no better solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then , or the assembly language tools we had.Enter Blazin ' Forth [ radiks.net ] for C64 : Disk-based Forth system , rather fast , with incremental compiler for interactive development , assembly integration... The author was giving it away in the 80 's .
The fact that the Micro-Soft ( ; - ) ) BASIC V2.0 was a piece of crap and that batch assembly tools were useless does not mean that there was no better solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.Enter Blazin' Forth [radiks.net] for C64: Disk-based Forth system, rather fast, with incremental compiler for interactive development, assembly integration... The author was giving it away in the 80's.
The fact that the Micro-Soft (;-)) BASIC V2.0 was a piece of crap and that batch assembly tools were useless does not mean that there was no better solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468874</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey pal, FUCK YOU IN YOUR ASS!!! this is a article about a real computer, a commodore 64. not some fag loving shitstained lump of turds like the apple iic. you dumb motherfuckers will never understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey pal , FUCK YOU IN YOUR ASS ! ! !
this is a article about a real computer , a commodore 64. not some fag loving shitstained lump of turds like the apple iic .
you dumb motherfuckers will never understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey pal, FUCK YOU IN YOUR ASS!!!
this is a article about a real computer, a commodore 64. not some fag loving shitstained lump of turds like the apple iic.
you dumb motherfuckers will never understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468092</id>
	<title>V-Max</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1268485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the most comprehensive protections at that time was called "V-Max!" which stood for Verify Maximum.  What were called "nibblers" for disc copy software couldn't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time.  There were two ways to copy V-Max, the first was to get a dedicated hardware copying unit.  The second was to apply a bit of knowledge with a debugger cartridge: the V-Max protection was a turn-key system you gave them files and they wrapped the protection around it and provided a fast-loader at the same time.  So what you would do is fill all of memory (the whole 64K) with a value you knew say: $AF.  Then you would load a V-Max file from the disc, it's loader would automatically take over and while it was loading you would enter your debugger cartridge and change it's exit point to point to itself.  So instead of $0800: RTS you would make it $0800: JMP $0800.  Then you would wait for the V-Max loader to fully load the file.  Then a quick button press on your debugger cartridge and use the memory monitor to find where the file loaded by seeing what memory was NOT $AF.  Then from the debugger cartridge save that memory block out again.  Completely de-protected file.  Since V-Max used standard kernel-load vectors the program itself needed no further modification, the protection was completely gone you just lost the fast-loader function.  Which you then re-added yourself into a chunk of memory wherever the game didn't use it.  Relocatable code was best for that.  Later versions of V-Max also did on-the-fly decompression of files so occasionally while stripping the protection you would run into a situation where your destination disk ran out of space versus the original protected disk.  Again, that was worked around by inserting your own custom loader into the kernel load-vectors which also did decompression.  V-Max was impossible for copy software of the day to copy but with a little bit of knowledge and a debugger cartridge it was absolutely trivial to defeat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most comprehensive protections at that time was called " V-Max !
" which stood for Verify Maximum .
What were called " nibblers " for disc copy software could n't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time .
There were two ways to copy V-Max , the first was to get a dedicated hardware copying unit .
The second was to apply a bit of knowledge with a debugger cartridge : the V-Max protection was a turn-key system you gave them files and they wrapped the protection around it and provided a fast-loader at the same time .
So what you would do is fill all of memory ( the whole 64K ) with a value you knew say : $ AF .
Then you would load a V-Max file from the disc , it 's loader would automatically take over and while it was loading you would enter your debugger cartridge and change it 's exit point to point to itself .
So instead of $ 0800 : RTS you would make it $ 0800 : JMP $ 0800 .
Then you would wait for the V-Max loader to fully load the file .
Then a quick button press on your debugger cartridge and use the memory monitor to find where the file loaded by seeing what memory was NOT $ AF .
Then from the debugger cartridge save that memory block out again .
Completely de-protected file .
Since V-Max used standard kernel-load vectors the program itself needed no further modification , the protection was completely gone you just lost the fast-loader function .
Which you then re-added yourself into a chunk of memory wherever the game did n't use it .
Relocatable code was best for that .
Later versions of V-Max also did on-the-fly decompression of files so occasionally while stripping the protection you would run into a situation where your destination disk ran out of space versus the original protected disk .
Again , that was worked around by inserting your own custom loader into the kernel load-vectors which also did decompression .
V-Max was impossible for copy software of the day to copy but with a little bit of knowledge and a debugger cartridge it was absolutely trivial to defeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most comprehensive protections at that time was called "V-Max!
" which stood for Verify Maximum.
What were called "nibblers" for disc copy software couldn't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time.
There were two ways to copy V-Max, the first was to get a dedicated hardware copying unit.
The second was to apply a bit of knowledge with a debugger cartridge: the V-Max protection was a turn-key system you gave them files and they wrapped the protection around it and provided a fast-loader at the same time.
So what you would do is fill all of memory (the whole 64K) with a value you knew say: $AF.
Then you would load a V-Max file from the disc, it's loader would automatically take over and while it was loading you would enter your debugger cartridge and change it's exit point to point to itself.
So instead of $0800: RTS you would make it $0800: JMP $0800.
Then you would wait for the V-Max loader to fully load the file.
Then a quick button press on your debugger cartridge and use the memory monitor to find where the file loaded by seeing what memory was NOT $AF.
Then from the debugger cartridge save that memory block out again.
Completely de-protected file.
Since V-Max used standard kernel-load vectors the program itself needed no further modification, the protection was completely gone you just lost the fast-loader function.
Which you then re-added yourself into a chunk of memory wherever the game didn't use it.
Relocatable code was best for that.
Later versions of V-Max also did on-the-fly decompression of files so occasionally while stripping the protection you would run into a situation where your destination disk ran out of space versus the original protected disk.
Again, that was worked around by inserting your own custom loader into the kernel load-vectors which also did decompression.
V-Max was impossible for copy software of the day to copy but with a little bit of knowledge and a debugger cartridge it was absolutely trivial to defeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032</id>
	<title>Relax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Relax. You've obviously read too many kdawson stories recently, and have been trolled into a heightened state of paranoia. Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.</p><p>Also, why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax .
You 've obviously read too many kdawson stories recently , and have been trolled into a heightened state of paranoia .
Do n't worry , it happens to the best of us.Also , why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax.
You've obviously read too many kdawson stories recently, and have been trolled into a heightened state of paranoia.
Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.Also, why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468616</id>
	<title>Re:Its still possible..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to stop using cliffhanger subjects. Really, give it a try; your readers will thank you for respecting them more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to stop using cliffhanger subjects .
Really , give it a try ; your readers will thank you for respecting them more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to stop using cliffhanger subjects.
Really, give it a try; your readers will thank you for respecting them more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473936</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1268598600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reality is somewhere between the two.</p><p>You're right that specialization is fundamental and not needing to understand, say, CPU architecture is an improvement.</p><p>On the other hand, just because you don't need to understand how computers work anymore, doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do so.</p><p>I have been interviewing a lot of Java programmers lately. Many of them have a very weak understanding of how Java actually works. For a lot of projects, this doesn't matter. However it is very typical that, for instance, candidates underestimate the memory usage of their code by half because they don't know Java characters are 16 bit. Perhaps it's not surprising that Java programs have a reputation for being slow and bloated. And it goes without saying that for many real world programming problems, you are working within a memory and CPU budget, so not knowing the basic costs of the abstractions you work with is going to cause problems sooner or later.</p><p>Joel on Software has a <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">good article on leaky abstractions</a> [joelonsoftware.com]. In my humble opinion, every working programmer should have read and pondered it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is somewhere between the two.You 're right that specialization is fundamental and not needing to understand , say , CPU architecture is an improvement.On the other hand , just because you do n't need to understand how computers work anymore , does n't mean it 's a bad idea to do so.I have been interviewing a lot of Java programmers lately .
Many of them have a very weak understanding of how Java actually works .
For a lot of projects , this does n't matter .
However it is very typical that , for instance , candidates underestimate the memory usage of their code by half because they do n't know Java characters are 16 bit .
Perhaps it 's not surprising that Java programs have a reputation for being slow and bloated .
And it goes without saying that for many real world programming problems , you are working within a memory and CPU budget , so not knowing the basic costs of the abstractions you work with is going to cause problems sooner or later.Joel on Software has a good article on leaky abstractions [ joelonsoftware.com ] .
In my humble opinion , every working programmer should have read and pondered it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is somewhere between the two.You're right that specialization is fundamental and not needing to understand, say, CPU architecture is an improvement.On the other hand, just because you don't need to understand how computers work anymore, doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do so.I have been interviewing a lot of Java programmers lately.
Many of them have a very weak understanding of how Java actually works.
For a lot of projects, this doesn't matter.
However it is very typical that, for instance, candidates underestimate the memory usage of their code by half because they don't know Java characters are 16 bit.
Perhaps it's not surprising that Java programs have a reputation for being slow and bloated.
And it goes without saying that for many real world programming problems, you are working within a memory and CPU budget, so not knowing the basic costs of the abstractions you work with is going to cause problems sooner or later.Joel on Software has a good article on leaky abstractions [joelonsoftware.com].
In my humble opinion, every working programmer should have read and pondered it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31475306</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268565480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>blah blah blah</p></div><p>Yep, you're a hero alright.  No doubt about it.  With that big head of yours and air of superiority.  Should we worship you now or do we all get together so we can do a whole group worship thing?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet another wanker who doesn't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.</p></div><p>Great, yet another asswipe who doesn't realise that people have hobbies that they enjoy and has to be a jerk to everyone else.<br>
Well, I hope you get a flat tire one day and while you're waiting for the <i>specialist</i> to arrive, you miss that all-important meeting.  Then again, you probably can't drive a car because there are specialists for that.  Everyone should have a chauffeur.  No sense wasting time on learning petty skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>blah blah blahYep , you 're a hero alright .
No doubt about it .
With that big head of yours and air of superiority .
Should we worship you now or do we all get together so we can do a whole group worship thing ? Yet another wanker who does n't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.Great , yet another asswipe who does n't realise that people have hobbies that they enjoy and has to be a jerk to everyone else .
Well , I hope you get a flat tire one day and while you 're waiting for the specialist to arrive , you miss that all-important meeting .
Then again , you probably ca n't drive a car because there are specialists for that .
Everyone should have a chauffeur .
No sense wasting time on learning petty skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blah blah blahYep, you're a hero alright.
No doubt about it.
With that big head of yours and air of superiority.
Should we worship you now or do we all get together so we can do a whole group worship thing?Yet another wanker who doesn't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.Great, yet another asswipe who doesn't realise that people have hobbies that they enjoy and has to be a jerk to everyone else.
Well, I hope you get a flat tire one day and while you're waiting for the specialist to arrive, you miss that all-important meeting.
Then again, you probably can't drive a car because there are specialists for that.
Everyone should have a chauffeur.
No sense wasting time on learning petty skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472962</id>
	<title>Re:Deranged facts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bill Gates's Personal Easter Eggs in 8-bit BASIC":
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.pagetable.com/?p=43" title="pagetable.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pagetable.com/?p=43</a> [pagetable.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bill Gates 's Personal Easter Eggs in 8-bit BASIC " : http : //www.pagetable.com/ ? p = 43 [ pagetable.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bill Gates's Personal Easter Eggs in 8-bit BASIC":

http://www.pagetable.com/?p=43 [pagetable.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468704</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1268490660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nostalgia, and attention spans.  Sure, <i>our</i> attention spans, of us, the old farts!
<br> <br>
We do not know the whole widget anymore from top to bottom like we did with the 8-bit machines of our childhoods... but if I talk to kids with an interest in computers today, they know a great deal more about the nitty-gritty of modern machines than I do.  Sure they aren't taking a soldering iron to the motherboard anymore like I used to do with the C64 to make some sort of interface, instead they stick some components on a breadboard and plug it right into a USB socket... and then proceed to write a driver for whatever it is they whacked together.  What I really miss is having the time and dedication to do that sort of thing... but I don't.  You are right, computers are different but no less accessible to tinkering.  What has really changed is <i>us</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nostalgia , and attention spans .
Sure , our attention spans , of us , the old farts !
We do not know the whole widget anymore from top to bottom like we did with the 8-bit machines of our childhoods... but if I talk to kids with an interest in computers today , they know a great deal more about the nitty-gritty of modern machines than I do .
Sure they are n't taking a soldering iron to the motherboard anymore like I used to do with the C64 to make some sort of interface , instead they stick some components on a breadboard and plug it right into a USB socket... and then proceed to write a driver for whatever it is they whacked together .
What I really miss is having the time and dedication to do that sort of thing... but I do n't .
You are right , computers are different but no less accessible to tinkering .
What has really changed is us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nostalgia, and attention spans.
Sure, our attention spans, of us, the old farts!
We do not know the whole widget anymore from top to bottom like we did with the 8-bit machines of our childhoods... but if I talk to kids with an interest in computers today, they know a great deal more about the nitty-gritty of modern machines than I do.
Sure they aren't taking a soldering iron to the motherboard anymore like I used to do with the C64 to make some sort of interface, instead they stick some components on a breadboard and plug it right into a USB socket... and then proceed to write a driver for whatever it is they whacked together.
What I really miss is having the time and dedication to do that sort of thing... but I don't.
You are right, computers are different but no less accessible to tinkering.
What has really changed is us</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468598</id>
	<title>Re:Its still possible..</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268489820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know man, it's a lot of work.  On my computer I have Ruby, Python, Perl, GCC, and who knows what else installed.  There are tons of APIs that I don't know what they do, even in the languages that they do know.  I also have a webserver, and FTP server, and probably several other servers.  They aren't running right now, but they came with the system.<br> <br>
On top of that, I have postfix config files, a mach\_kernel file, and a bunch of other weird files that are either quite complex (<a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596002121" title="oreilly.com">this book about Postfix is 288 pages</a> [oreilly.com]), or I have no idea what they do, or they are binary and I have no hope of ever figuring them out.  Even if I switch to my Linux partition, where I have the source code to everything, it's a lot of work to understand every single file in even just the Kernel.  I'm not sure anyone even understands the Kernel itself completely.  I haven't talked about hardware yet, but Intel processors do some tricky out of order operations and pipelining and such, it's not always easy to predict what is going to happen on one of those things.  It is a lot of knowledge, and I am not sure anyone actually does understand it today, even if it is possible.  No one I know makes that claim.<br> <br>
This is really different from the days of the C64, where the entire thing was only 64k (actually more with paging).  You can read the entire memory contents of 64k in an afternoon, literally everything on the computer.  You could definitely understand all the 'source code' (except the source code was in assembly) to the entire system.  Predicting what the processor would do and how long it would take wasn't hard. You could fit everything about the system (even schematics to the hardware) in a single book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know man , it 's a lot of work .
On my computer I have Ruby , Python , Perl , GCC , and who knows what else installed .
There are tons of APIs that I do n't know what they do , even in the languages that they do know .
I also have a webserver , and FTP server , and probably several other servers .
They are n't running right now , but they came with the system .
On top of that , I have postfix config files , a mach \ _kernel file , and a bunch of other weird files that are either quite complex ( this book about Postfix is 288 pages [ oreilly.com ] ) , or I have no idea what they do , or they are binary and I have no hope of ever figuring them out .
Even if I switch to my Linux partition , where I have the source code to everything , it 's a lot of work to understand every single file in even just the Kernel .
I 'm not sure anyone even understands the Kernel itself completely .
I have n't talked about hardware yet , but Intel processors do some tricky out of order operations and pipelining and such , it 's not always easy to predict what is going to happen on one of those things .
It is a lot of knowledge , and I am not sure anyone actually does understand it today , even if it is possible .
No one I know makes that claim .
This is really different from the days of the C64 , where the entire thing was only 64k ( actually more with paging ) .
You can read the entire memory contents of 64k in an afternoon , literally everything on the computer .
You could definitely understand all the 'source code ' ( except the source code was in assembly ) to the entire system .
Predicting what the processor would do and how long it would take was n't hard .
You could fit everything about the system ( even schematics to the hardware ) in a single book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know man, it's a lot of work.
On my computer I have Ruby, Python, Perl, GCC, and who knows what else installed.
There are tons of APIs that I don't know what they do, even in the languages that they do know.
I also have a webserver, and FTP server, and probably several other servers.
They aren't running right now, but they came with the system.
On top of that, I have postfix config files, a mach\_kernel file, and a bunch of other weird files that are either quite complex (this book about Postfix is 288 pages [oreilly.com]), or I have no idea what they do, or they are binary and I have no hope of ever figuring them out.
Even if I switch to my Linux partition, where I have the source code to everything, it's a lot of work to understand every single file in even just the Kernel.
I'm not sure anyone even understands the Kernel itself completely.
I haven't talked about hardware yet, but Intel processors do some tricky out of order operations and pipelining and such, it's not always easy to predict what is going to happen on one of those things.
It is a lot of knowledge, and I am not sure anyone actually does understand it today, even if it is possible.
No one I know makes that claim.
This is really different from the days of the C64, where the entire thing was only 64k (actually more with paging).
You can read the entire memory contents of 64k in an afternoon, literally everything on the computer.
You could definitely understand all the 'source code' (except the source code was in assembly) to the entire system.
Predicting what the processor would do and how long it would take wasn't hard.
You could fit everything about the system (even schematics to the hardware) in a single book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</id>
	<title>Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's lovely to remember what was, but not so great to forget what we have today.</p><p>Sure, we generally don't know the whole widget from top to bottom, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running. It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.</p><p>The first machine I knew inside-out was the ZX-Spectrum. While I like to remember it fondly, I would never want a return to those primitive times.</p><p>It's a bit like object-oriented programming - we hide the details of an object and only deal with the interface. It's more scalable and leads to faster development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's lovely to remember what was , but not so great to forget what we have today.Sure , we generally do n't know the whole widget from top to bottom , but it 's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running .
It 's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then , or the assembly language tools we had.The first machine I knew inside-out was the ZX-Spectrum .
While I like to remember it fondly , I would never want a return to those primitive times.It 's a bit like object-oriented programming - we hide the details of an object and only deal with the interface .
It 's more scalable and leads to faster development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's lovely to remember what was, but not so great to forget what we have today.Sure, we generally don't know the whole widget from top to bottom, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running.
It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.The first machine I knew inside-out was the ZX-Spectrum.
While I like to remember it fondly, I would never want a return to those primitive times.It's a bit like object-oriented programming - we hide the details of an object and only deal with the interface.
It's more scalable and leads to faster development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468350</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>xtal</author>
	<datestamp>1268487660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to know a platform inside out, there's a fully documented open-source linux kernel staring there at you in the face.</p><p>Go get any of the dozens of embedded arm kits, any of the GREAT bits of documentation, and dig in. You want to get dirty with the hardware? U-boot is right there.</p><p>Want to pay with SRAM and gates? A $100 FPGA will get you all you need. Including a VGA out. We made a fully HDL Pong Game; including the VGA DAC out of a $20 part.</p><p>Hell, for ALL that matter, go get a Gameboy (any one) for peanuts, a loader cartridge, and hack away!</p><p>I'm as much for nostalgia as the next guy, I cut my teeth on a Vic-20 and a C64; I'm an EE because of the experience. I wouldn't go back for a second though. For the price of my first computer you could get yourself a really nice embedded development shop and do some pretty cool stuff.</p><p>It's a great time to be interested in this. There will always be good programmers, and there will never be enough of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know a platform inside out , there 's a fully documented open-source linux kernel staring there at you in the face.Go get any of the dozens of embedded arm kits , any of the GREAT bits of documentation , and dig in .
You want to get dirty with the hardware ?
U-boot is right there.Want to pay with SRAM and gates ?
A $ 100 FPGA will get you all you need .
Including a VGA out .
We made a fully HDL Pong Game ; including the VGA DAC out of a $ 20 part.Hell , for ALL that matter , go get a Gameboy ( any one ) for peanuts , a loader cartridge , and hack away ! I 'm as much for nostalgia as the next guy , I cut my teeth on a Vic-20 and a C64 ; I 'm an EE because of the experience .
I would n't go back for a second though .
For the price of my first computer you could get yourself a really nice embedded development shop and do some pretty cool stuff.It 's a great time to be interested in this .
There will always be good programmers , and there will never be enough of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know a platform inside out, there's a fully documented open-source linux kernel staring there at you in the face.Go get any of the dozens of embedded arm kits, any of the GREAT bits of documentation, and dig in.
You want to get dirty with the hardware?
U-boot is right there.Want to pay with SRAM and gates?
A $100 FPGA will get you all you need.
Including a VGA out.
We made a fully HDL Pong Game; including the VGA DAC out of a $20 part.Hell, for ALL that matter, go get a Gameboy (any one) for peanuts, a loader cartridge, and hack away!I'm as much for nostalgia as the next guy, I cut my teeth on a Vic-20 and a C64; I'm an EE because of the experience.
I wouldn't go back for a second though.
For the price of my first computer you could get yourself a really nice embedded development shop and do some pretty cool stuff.It's a great time to be interested in this.
There will always be good programmers, and there will never be enough of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31480930</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you slot perfectly into the 'doesn't know what s/he doesn't know' category.</p><p>Sounds like plenty of people have pointed this out to you as well, and you've developed this<br>callous 'but I'm a specialist!' instead of facing up to the fact that a good software enginner really<br>needs to have a good appreciation of what's going on from hardware up to OS and THEN on to<br>how the higher level VM or language interpreter works.</p><p>It's ALL important you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you slot perfectly into the 'does n't know what s/he does n't know ' category.Sounds like plenty of people have pointed this out to you as well , and you 've developed thiscallous 'but I 'm a specialist !
' instead of facing up to the fact that a good software enginner reallyneeds to have a good appreciation of what 's going on from hardware up to OS and THEN on tohow the higher level VM or language interpreter works.It 's ALL important you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you slot perfectly into the 'doesn't know what s/he doesn't know' category.Sounds like plenty of people have pointed this out to you as well, and you've developed thiscallous 'but I'm a specialist!
' instead of facing up to the fact that a good software enginner reallyneeds to have a good appreciation of what's going on from hardware up to OS and THEN on tohow the higher level VM or language interpreter works.It's ALL important you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>2phar</author>
	<datestamp>1268484420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh what fun raster interrupts were.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh what fun raster interrupts were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh what fun raster interrupts were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468530</id>
	<title>Those were the days!</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1268489280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typing in programs line by line from a book or from Compute! Gazette to animate a moon landing, or play Basketball Sam and Ed (I think they were called).<br> <br>

Anyway, even Mad Magazine eventually published a program, but it never worked.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typing in programs line by line from a book or from Compute !
Gazette to animate a moon landing , or play Basketball Sam and Ed ( I think they were called ) .
Anyway , even Mad Magazine eventually published a program , but it never worked .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typing in programs line by line from a book or from Compute!
Gazette to animate a moon landing, or play Basketball Sam and Ed (I think they were called).
Anyway, even Mad Magazine eventually published a program, but it never worked.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468078</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1268485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories.</p></div><p>It wasn't necessary then either. The point is that you <i>could</i>. Now this is no longer possible. There are pros and cons to this, we can acheive more by building on the magical black boxes, but there was something deeply satisfying about <i>knowing</i> a device in such depth. The same can still be acheived in the embedded realm, however, and due to modern advances, it's cheaper and smaller than ever!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in 2010 it 's not necessary to understand the whole computer , from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories.It was n't necessary then either .
The point is that you could .
Now this is no longer possible .
There are pros and cons to this , we can acheive more by building on the magical black boxes , but there was something deeply satisfying about knowing a device in such depth .
The same can still be acheived in the embedded realm , however , and due to modern advances , it 's cheaper and smaller than ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories.It wasn't necessary then either.
The point is that you could.
Now this is no longer possible.
There are pros and cons to this, we can acheive more by building on the magical black boxes, but there was something deeply satisfying about knowing a device in such depth.
The same can still be acheived in the embedded realm, however, and due to modern advances, it's cheaper and smaller than ever!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469404</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1268497200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those were the good old days.<br>I could make beautiful music on my Apple II.</p><p>No, really, I made music. Like this:</p><p>10 POKE -16336,0<br>20 REM TOGGLE SPEAKER<br>30 FOR I=0 TO PDL(0)<br>35 REM DELAY BASED ON POSITION OF GAME PADDLE<br>40 J=J+1<br>50 NEXT I<br>60 GOTO 10</p><p>Man... I was so productive back then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were the good old days.I could make beautiful music on my Apple II.No , really , I made music .
Like this : 10 POKE -16336,020 REM TOGGLE SPEAKER30 FOR I = 0 TO PDL ( 0 ) 35 REM DELAY BASED ON POSITION OF GAME PADDLE40 J = J + 150 NEXT I60 GOTO 10Man... I was so productive back then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those were the good old days.I could make beautiful music on my Apple II.No, really, I made music.
Like this:10 POKE -16336,020 REM TOGGLE SPEAKER30 FOR I=0 TO PDL(0)35 REM DELAY BASED ON POSITION OF GAME PADDLE40 J=J+150 NEXT I60 GOTO 10Man... I was so productive back then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</id>
	<title>I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore.  Little things like writing your own device drivers, drawing graphics via direct access to interlaces vram, (oh the maths!) direct read latch access to the floppy drives, writing hybrid assembly/BASIC apps.  It was grand.</p><p>It's downright <b>depressing</b> to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2\%, and <i>still</i> wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//c.</p><p>*sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore .
Little things like writing your own device drivers , drawing graphics via direct access to interlaces vram , ( oh the maths !
) direct read latch access to the floppy drives , writing hybrid assembly/BASIC apps .
It was grand.It 's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers , classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2 \ % , and still wish I knew a quarter as much ( percentage-wise ) about my current computer as I did about my //c .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore.
Little things like writing your own device drivers, drawing graphics via direct access to interlaces vram, (oh the maths!
) direct read latch access to the floppy drives, writing hybrid assembly/BASIC apps.
It was grand.It's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2\%, and still wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my //c.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468030</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer</p></div><p>
Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc. If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.
</p><p>
Or unless you're programming for an 8-bit microcontroller roughly as powerful as a Commodore PET. Not all "computers" are as powerful as PCs or even smartphones.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in 2010 it 's not necessary to understand the whole computer Unless you want more throughput : manipulate more objects at once , serve more users at once , etc .
If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead , you may need to recode inner loops in C . Or unless you 're programming for an 8-bit microcontroller roughly as powerful as a Commodore PET .
Not all " computers " are as powerful as PCs or even smartphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer
Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc.
If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.

Or unless you're programming for an 8-bit microcontroller roughly as powerful as a Commodore PET.
Not all "computers" are as powerful as PCs or even smartphones.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468310</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1268487360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been waiting for this guide... like... forever. Now I can finally finish that work project</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for this guide... like... forever .
Now I can finally finish that work project</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for this guide... like... forever.
Now I can finally finish that work project</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468068</id>
	<title>Just say embedded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the stuff we learned on the VIC-20 and Commodore 64 (and PET)  still applies in the embedded world.  If you could program them, you can totally do a PIC or an Atmel AVR (or Arduino).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the stuff we learned on the VIC-20 and Commodore 64 ( and PET ) still applies in the embedded world .
If you could program them , you can totally do a PIC or an Atmel AVR ( or Arduino ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the stuff we learned on the VIC-20 and Commodore 64 (and PET)  still applies in the embedded world.
If you could program them, you can totally do a PIC or an Atmel AVR (or Arduino).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469946</id>
	<title>the vic20 manual that came with it WAS GREAT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268503980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...at age 12</p><p>allowed me to make my own databases<br>graphic animations and even up and down moving sprites</p><p>i even parsed commands to do htngs like move an army and make a hockey game and boxing game.<br>12<br>what do your kids do<br>besides twitter , waste money on phones , and use myspace and facebook</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...at age 12allowed me to make my own databasesgraphic animations and even up and down moving spritesi even parsed commands to do htngs like move an army and make a hockey game and boxing game.12what do your kids dobesides twitter , waste money on phones , and use myspace and facebook</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...at age 12allowed me to make my own databasesgraphic animations and even up and down moving spritesi even parsed commands to do htngs like move an army and make a hockey game and boxing game.12what do your kids dobesides twitter , waste money on phones , and use myspace and facebook</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469172</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1268495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc. If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.</p></div><p>Instead of going through the expensive and painful process of rewriting parts of your application in a more efficient manner, you could also just through more machines in your server rack and be done with it. Adding/upgrading servers if often a lot cheaper than optimizing your code, and also introduces less new bugs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you want more throughput : manipulate more objects at once , serve more users at once , etc .
If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead , you may need to recode inner loops in C.Instead of going through the expensive and painful process of rewriting parts of your application in a more efficient manner , you could also just through more machines in your server rack and be done with it .
Adding/upgrading servers if often a lot cheaper than optimizing your code , and also introduces less new bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc.
If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.Instead of going through the expensive and painful process of rewriting parts of your application in a more efficient manner, you could also just through more machines in your server rack and be done with it.
Adding/upgrading servers if often a lot cheaper than optimizing your code, and also introduces less new bugs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468246</id>
	<title>Mmmh,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268486940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've learned programming on a C64, first BASIC, then assembler. 6502/6510 Assembler was a pain. 3 Registers for data, the ACCU and 2 others, only 8-bit and a very simple command set, which made everything a pain. Later I got an Amiga with the Motorola 68000 CPU and felt like a high level language compared to the C64 stuff, since you had a lot of 32-bit Registers that you could use at your will, a complex command set and lots of addressing modes, so it was much easier to transfer the stuff you had in mind directly into code.<br>Dealing with the OS and the hardware got more complicated though. The C64 hardware and OS were rather simple and you owned the machine with your program. No supervisor mode / ring-something, multi-tasking, multi-user etc. stuff that makes things complicated. But rather stuff like reading and writing hardware registers at your will even from BASIC with PEEK and POKE. Those were the days. lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've learned programming on a C64 , first BASIC , then assembler .
6502/6510 Assembler was a pain .
3 Registers for data , the ACCU and 2 others , only 8-bit and a very simple command set , which made everything a pain .
Later I got an Amiga with the Motorola 68000 CPU and felt like a high level language compared to the C64 stuff , since you had a lot of 32-bit Registers that you could use at your will , a complex command set and lots of addressing modes , so it was much easier to transfer the stuff you had in mind directly into code.Dealing with the OS and the hardware got more complicated though .
The C64 hardware and OS were rather simple and you owned the machine with your program .
No supervisor mode / ring-something , multi-tasking , multi-user etc .
stuff that makes things complicated .
But rather stuff like reading and writing hardware registers at your will even from BASIC with PEEK and POKE .
Those were the days .
lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've learned programming on a C64, first BASIC, then assembler.
6502/6510 Assembler was a pain.
3 Registers for data, the ACCU and 2 others, only 8-bit and a very simple command set, which made everything a pain.
Later I got an Amiga with the Motorola 68000 CPU and felt like a high level language compared to the C64 stuff, since you had a lot of 32-bit Registers that you could use at your will, a complex command set and lots of addressing modes, so it was much easier to transfer the stuff you had in mind directly into code.Dealing with the OS and the hardware got more complicated though.
The C64 hardware and OS were rather simple and you owned the machine with your program.
No supervisor mode / ring-something, multi-tasking, multi-user etc.
stuff that makes things complicated.
But rather stuff like reading and writing hardware registers at your will even from BASIC with PEEK and POKE.
Those were the days.
lol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473586</id>
	<title>Agreed</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1268595480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed - I miss when things were simpler but I also enjoy the more powerful systems we have today. Most of all, I wish that the modern systems were backward compatible so that we could still run old software. I would like to see standard emulators for the Exidy, MacClassic, etc. Apple, for example, really should continue supporting the old OSs. There is a tremendous amount of old and very good software, especially in kids educational packages, that ran on the older computers but won't work in MacOSX. Sadly nobody is bringing out new versions. Even the iPod has enough computing power to emulate these old packages with ease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed - I miss when things were simpler but I also enjoy the more powerful systems we have today .
Most of all , I wish that the modern systems were backward compatible so that we could still run old software .
I would like to see standard emulators for the Exidy , MacClassic , etc .
Apple , for example , really should continue supporting the old OSs .
There is a tremendous amount of old and very good software , especially in kids educational packages , that ran on the older computers but wo n't work in MacOSX .
Sadly nobody is bringing out new versions .
Even the iPod has enough computing power to emulate these old packages with ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed - I miss when things were simpler but I also enjoy the more powerful systems we have today.
Most of all, I wish that the modern systems were backward compatible so that we could still run old software.
I would like to see standard emulators for the Exidy, MacClassic, etc.
Apple, for example, really should continue supporting the old OSs.
There is a tremendous amount of old and very good software, especially in kids educational packages, that ran on the older computers but won't work in MacOSX.
Sadly nobody is bringing out new versions.
Even the iPod has enough computing power to emulate these old packages with ease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468044</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>Trivial Solutions</author>
	<datestamp>1268485200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda like "What part of 'God' do you not understand?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like " What part of 'God ' do you not understand ?
" : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like "What part of 'God' do you not understand?
" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467910</id>
	<title>"Tape Storage" image turns to goatse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268484420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was studying the "Tape Storage" image in that article, and after about three or four minutes it switched to goatse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Beware!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was studying the " Tape Storage " image in that article , and after about three or four minutes it switched to goatse .
: ( Beware !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was studying the "Tape Storage" image in that article, and after about three or four minutes it switched to goatse.
:( Beware!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</id>
	<title>Its still possible..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To know a computer from the ground up, as it were. Its not some long lost dream or anything, after all your average disposable Crapple Netbook with "clout computing" or Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions, more memory, more peripherals that runs faster. <br> <br>

Its just that unless you start off at the low level, learning about transistors and that sort of shizzle and learning assembly language you probably will never bother to learn it. A lot of programmers now think about functions, objects and arrays as if they actually exists - not just a convenient way of presenting blocks of code and data in a way that makes it easy for you to understand. Fuck it, a lot of people fairly high up on the IT scene have no clue in the wide world about TCP or UDP but they sure as hell know how to write a 'Web App' using JSON and the latest Web 2.5 gimmick completely oblivious to any of the lower levels.<br> <br>

The problem is when you have nearly everyone going for the latest abstraction layer, easy low hanging fruits (at the expense of efficiency and everything else - rabble rabble rabble) high level stuff there might be a day 2110 when they're still using HTTP + more abstraction layers but quantum computers aren't getting any faster for what they need and nobody knows knows any of the low-level stuff anymore. If you are the one kid on the block who knows how to write assembly in 2110 you'll be a rich man by 2111, just in time for the end of the world cause the Mayans were off by 100 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To know a computer from the ground up , as it were .
Its not some long lost dream or anything , after all your average disposable Crapple Netbook with " clout computing " or Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions , more memory , more peripherals that runs faster .
Its just that unless you start off at the low level , learning about transistors and that sort of shizzle and learning assembly language you probably will never bother to learn it .
A lot of programmers now think about functions , objects and arrays as if they actually exists - not just a convenient way of presenting blocks of code and data in a way that makes it easy for you to understand .
Fuck it , a lot of people fairly high up on the IT scene have no clue in the wide world about TCP or UDP but they sure as hell know how to write a 'Web App ' using JSON and the latest Web 2.5 gimmick completely oblivious to any of the lower levels .
The problem is when you have nearly everyone going for the latest abstraction layer , easy low hanging fruits ( at the expense of efficiency and everything else - rabble rabble rabble ) high level stuff there might be a day 2110 when they 're still using HTTP + more abstraction layers but quantum computers are n't getting any faster for what they need and nobody knows knows any of the low-level stuff anymore .
If you are the one kid on the block who knows how to write assembly in 2110 you 'll be a rich man by 2111 , just in time for the end of the world cause the Mayans were off by 100 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To know a computer from the ground up, as it were.
Its not some long lost dream or anything, after all your average disposable Crapple Netbook with "clout computing" or Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions, more memory, more peripherals that runs faster.
Its just that unless you start off at the low level, learning about transistors and that sort of shizzle and learning assembly language you probably will never bother to learn it.
A lot of programmers now think about functions, objects and arrays as if they actually exists - not just a convenient way of presenting blocks of code and data in a way that makes it easy for you to understand.
Fuck it, a lot of people fairly high up on the IT scene have no clue in the wide world about TCP or UDP but they sure as hell know how to write a 'Web App' using JSON and the latest Web 2.5 gimmick completely oblivious to any of the lower levels.
The problem is when you have nearly everyone going for the latest abstraction layer, easy low hanging fruits (at the expense of efficiency and everything else - rabble rabble rabble) high level stuff there might be a day 2110 when they're still using HTTP + more abstraction layers but quantum computers aren't getting any faster for what they need and nobody knows knows any of the low-level stuff anymore.
If you are the one kid on the block who knows how to write assembly in 2110 you'll be a rich man by 2111, just in time for the end of the world cause the Mayans were off by 100 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471998</id>
	<title>End at the End of the Computer Era</title>
	<author>alexhmit01</author>
	<datestamp>1268580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the end of the computer era.  We're still using them because nobody has come up with anything new, but it's an exception.  Computer desktops are becoming more streamlined, easier to lock down, and focused on a handful of applications.  The web browser and browser-apps is replacing the little "one off" freeware apps.  Sure you may need a local office suite for heavy processing, but you can get by with far fewer applications installed than 10 years ago.</p><p>10 years ago, I'd have Finger, Whois, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, FTP, etc. clients on a Windows desktop.  Now if I'm on OS X or Linux, I have them, if I'm on Windows at the office, I run them web based if I need them.</p><p>For home computing, I don't even have a "home computer" anymore.  I have one in the home office, but it's purpose is primarily working from home, not "general computer."  Between the Blackberry, iPad, iPhone, etc., all these different components take over our computing needs as inexpensive special purpose machines.</p><p>Remember, in the early microprocessing days, it was exciting to get a computer for $2000, probably $10k in today's dollars 25 years later.  For that kind of money, it was important to do EVERYTHING.  Now we buy a platform for 2\%-4\% of a 286 computer (in real terms), so who cares if it does everything or just runs apps from the Apple store.  I could buy 25 computing devices and have less money invested than I would have to have a Mac AND an "IBM Compatible."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the end of the computer era .
We 're still using them because nobody has come up with anything new , but it 's an exception .
Computer desktops are becoming more streamlined , easier to lock down , and focused on a handful of applications .
The web browser and browser-apps is replacing the little " one off " freeware apps .
Sure you may need a local office suite for heavy processing , but you can get by with far fewer applications installed than 10 years ago.10 years ago , I 'd have Finger , Whois , Telnet , Ping , Traceroute , FTP , etc .
clients on a Windows desktop .
Now if I 'm on OS X or Linux , I have them , if I 'm on Windows at the office , I run them web based if I need them.For home computing , I do n't even have a " home computer " anymore .
I have one in the home office , but it 's purpose is primarily working from home , not " general computer .
" Between the Blackberry , iPad , iPhone , etc. , all these different components take over our computing needs as inexpensive special purpose machines.Remember , in the early microprocessing days , it was exciting to get a computer for $ 2000 , probably $ 10k in today 's dollars 25 years later .
For that kind of money , it was important to do EVERYTHING .
Now we buy a platform for 2 \ % -4 \ % of a 286 computer ( in real terms ) , so who cares if it does everything or just runs apps from the Apple store .
I could buy 25 computing devices and have less money invested than I would have to have a Mac AND an " IBM Compatible .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the end of the computer era.
We're still using them because nobody has come up with anything new, but it's an exception.
Computer desktops are becoming more streamlined, easier to lock down, and focused on a handful of applications.
The web browser and browser-apps is replacing the little "one off" freeware apps.
Sure you may need a local office suite for heavy processing, but you can get by with far fewer applications installed than 10 years ago.10 years ago, I'd have Finger, Whois, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, FTP, etc.
clients on a Windows desktop.
Now if I'm on OS X or Linux, I have them, if I'm on Windows at the office, I run them web based if I need them.For home computing, I don't even have a "home computer" anymore.
I have one in the home office, but it's purpose is primarily working from home, not "general computer.
"  Between the Blackberry, iPad, iPhone, etc., all these different components take over our computing needs as inexpensive special purpose machines.Remember, in the early microprocessing days, it was exciting to get a computer for $2000, probably $10k in today's dollars 25 years later.
For that kind of money, it was important to do EVERYTHING.
Now we buy a platform for 2\%-4\% of a 286 computer (in real terms), so who cares if it does everything or just runs apps from the Apple store.
I could buy 25 computing devices and have less money invested than I would have to have a Mac AND an "IBM Compatible.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470150</id>
	<title>Re:Kudos to the C-64</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268506680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So there was some truth to that old Commodore TV commercial after all.</p><p>The kid with the C64 ended up driving the train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there was some truth to that old Commodore TV commercial after all.The kid with the C64 ended up driving the train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there was some truth to that old Commodore TV commercial after all.The kid with the C64 ended up driving the train.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469980</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268504520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And that was a big part of it, the stability of the platforms during that era. A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind. Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value.</p></div></blockquote><p>And because those computers insisted on remaining frozen in time is why vanished - because they became irrelevant as the world moved on and they didn't.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nor do they need to be the exact same model.  Software is smarter now-a-days and can run on a variety of non-identical machines of the same type.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that was a big part of it , the stability of the platforms during that era .
A C64 was exactly the same as every other one , a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it 's kind .
Later models tended to retain as close to 100 \ % backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value.And because those computers insisted on remaining frozen in time is why vanished - because they became irrelevant as the world moved on and they did n't .
  Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you wo n't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform.Nor do they need to be the exact same model .
Software is smarter now-a-days and can run on a variety of non-identical machines of the same type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that was a big part of it, the stability of the platforms during that era.
A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind.
Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value.And because those computers insisted on remaining frozen in time is why vanished - because they became irrelevant as the world moved on and they didn't.
  Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform.Nor do they need to be the exact same model.
Software is smarter now-a-days and can run on a variety of non-identical machines of the same type.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472704</id>
	<title>Re:V-Max</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268587980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What were called "nibblers" for disc copy software couldn't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time. </i></p><p>What made it impossible to copy the bits from one disk to another (I assume this is what a hardware duplicator you mentioned would do)?  I'm familiar with the terminology from the day, but was only beginning to understand computers at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What were called " nibblers " for disc copy software could n't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time .
What made it impossible to copy the bits from one disk to another ( I assume this is what a hardware duplicator you mentioned would do ) ?
I 'm familiar with the terminology from the day , but was only beginning to understand computers at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What were called "nibblers" for disc copy software couldn't touch it even though those nibblers represented the ultimate in disk copy technology at the time.
What made it impossible to copy the bits from one disk to another (I assume this is what a hardware duplicator you mentioned would do)?
I'm familiar with the terminology from the day, but was only beginning to understand computers at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912</id>
	<title>Frist psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268484420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Atari 800 rules!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Atari 800 rules !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atari 800 rules!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468250</id>
	<title>Kudos to the C-64</title>
	<author>PDG</author>
	<datestamp>1268487000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I credit going through elementary school with a Commodore 64, one of the few in my school that couldn't actually afford one, for my advanced engineer position I have now.  I spent so much time hacking away basic programs and stuff that I ended up learning so much computer science without even realizing.</p><p>Its the only explanation I have for how I've been a software engineer for my entire post school career (the past dozen plus years) while my undergrad degree was a BA in English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I credit going through elementary school with a Commodore 64 , one of the few in my school that could n't actually afford one , for my advanced engineer position I have now .
I spent so much time hacking away basic programs and stuff that I ended up learning so much computer science without even realizing.Its the only explanation I have for how I 've been a software engineer for my entire post school career ( the past dozen plus years ) while my undergrad degree was a BA in English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I credit going through elementary school with a Commodore 64, one of the few in my school that couldn't actually afford one, for my advanced engineer position I have now.
I spent so much time hacking away basic programs and stuff that I ended up learning so much computer science without even realizing.Its the only explanation I have for how I've been a software engineer for my entire post school career (the past dozen plus years) while my undergrad degree was a BA in English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468650</id>
	<title>Re:Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268490180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, back when I was a kid and had a C-64, I wrote a JVM for it. Unfortunately I had trouble, because while the JVM standard defines <tt>long</tt> as not being threadsafe (as a sop to 32-bit architectures), it defines operations on <tt>int</tt>, <tt>short</tt>, <tt>char</tt>, and <tt>Object</tt> references as being atomic. So I had to write single-threaded code to simulate multiple threads just to get the garbage collection to work. And my <tt>char</tt> mappings didn't support Arabic and Chinese- you had to stick with <tt>PETSCII</tt>.
<br> <br>I was so embarrassed in front of my friends when my games paused intermittently to clear out kilobytes of garbage from the little heap. They were like, WTF, what is it doing, and I said, give me a break, it's Java. The only program I ever really got to work right was my C-64 emulator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , back when I was a kid and had a C-64 , I wrote a JVM for it .
Unfortunately I had trouble , because while the JVM standard defines long as not being threadsafe ( as a sop to 32-bit architectures ) , it defines operations on int , short , char , and Object references as being atomic .
So I had to write single-threaded code to simulate multiple threads just to get the garbage collection to work .
And my char mappings did n't support Arabic and Chinese- you had to stick with PETSCII .
I was so embarrassed in front of my friends when my games paused intermittently to clear out kilobytes of garbage from the little heap .
They were like , WTF , what is it doing , and I said , give me a break , it 's Java .
The only program I ever really got to work right was my C-64 emulator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, back when I was a kid and had a C-64, I wrote a JVM for it.
Unfortunately I had trouble, because while the JVM standard defines long as not being threadsafe (as a sop to 32-bit architectures), it defines operations on int, short, char, and Object references as being atomic.
So I had to write single-threaded code to simulate multiple threads just to get the garbage collection to work.
And my char mappings didn't support Arabic and Chinese- you had to stick with PETSCII.
I was so embarrassed in front of my friends when my games paused intermittently to clear out kilobytes of garbage from the little heap.
They were like, WTF, what is it doing, and I said, give me a break, it's Java.
The only program I ever really got to work right was my C-64 emulator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31486888</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1268644140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather what fun it was when they weren't there, say most clone PC VGA cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather what fun it was when they were n't there , say most clone PC VGA cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather what fun it was when they weren't there, say most clone PC VGA cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468264</id>
	<title>The 64 was a Godsend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran an entire computer supply company on a 64 - well over $500,000 in sales.<br>It worked and it did what I needed it to do.<br>That said I'd rather not revert to those days.</p><p>Anybody here see the episode of Harvey Birdman where the Jetsons came back from the future to sue the past for screwing up the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran an entire computer supply company on a 64 - well over $ 500,000 in sales.It worked and it did what I needed it to do.That said I 'd rather not revert to those days.Anybody here see the episode of Harvey Birdman where the Jetsons came back from the future to sue the past for screwing up the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran an entire computer supply company on a 64 - well over $500,000 in sales.It worked and it did what I needed it to do.That said I'd rather not revert to those days.Anybody here see the episode of Harvey Birdman where the Jetsons came back from the future to sue the past for screwing up the planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468930</id>
	<title>experimenting and learning</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a 1 line game for the commodore series of computers.<br>Something like the below. You could do it in less than 40 characters with the short cuts. It even worked on the TRS80 line with slight modifications.<br>I liked walking into their sales rooms with the "don't touch serious stuff" feel and having a game going in 30 seconds.</p><p>0 poke 32788+loc,65; loc=loc+peek(151)*2-1; print tab(rand(37)),"XXX"; if peek(32788+loc) == 32 GOTO 0</p><p>You had to clear the screen and start it with RUN at the bottom for it to work</p><p>poke 32788+loc,65       # Display your lander "A" at the middle top of the screen+ offset<br>loc=loc+peek(151)*2-1   # update your location to the right if shift is pressed, otherwise to the left. No going straight.<br>print "XXX"             # but a block XXX at the bottom of the screen and scroll the previous display of your lander A off the top<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; # the blocks would scroll up towards the top of the screen and you had to dodge them<br>if peek()               # loop if you are not going to hit a block</p><p>It ran nice and fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a 1 line game for the commodore series of computers.Something like the below .
You could do it in less than 40 characters with the short cuts .
It even worked on the TRS80 line with slight modifications.I liked walking into their sales rooms with the " do n't touch serious stuff " feel and having a game going in 30 seconds.0 poke 32788 + loc,65 ; loc = loc + peek ( 151 ) * 2-1 ; print tab ( rand ( 37 ) ) , " XXX " ; if peek ( 32788 + loc ) = = 32 GOTO 0You had to clear the screen and start it with RUN at the bottom for it to workpoke 32788 + loc,65 # Display your lander " A " at the middle top of the screen + offsetloc = loc + peek ( 151 ) * 2-1 # update your location to the right if shift is pressed , otherwise to the left .
No going straight.print " XXX " # but a block XXX at the bottom of the screen and scroll the previous display of your lander A off the top                                                 # the blocks would scroll up towards the top of the screen and you had to dodge themif peek ( ) # loop if you are not going to hit a blockIt ran nice and fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a 1 line game for the commodore series of computers.Something like the below.
You could do it in less than 40 characters with the short cuts.
It even worked on the TRS80 line with slight modifications.I liked walking into their sales rooms with the "don't touch serious stuff" feel and having a game going in 30 seconds.0 poke 32788+loc,65; loc=loc+peek(151)*2-1; print tab(rand(37)),"XXX"; if peek(32788+loc) == 32 GOTO 0You had to clear the screen and start it with RUN at the bottom for it to workpoke 32788+loc,65       # Display your lander "A" at the middle top of the screen+ offsetloc=loc+peek(151)*2-1   # update your location to the right if shift is pressed, otherwise to the left.
No going straight.print "XXX"             # but a block XXX at the bottom of the screen and scroll the previous display of your lander A off the top
                                                # the blocks would scroll up towards the top of the screen and you had to dodge themif peek()               # loop if you are not going to hit a blockIt ran nice and fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468066</id>
	<title>Re:Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java</p></div><p>Garbage collectors in Java are good for collecting objects that own only memory but lousy for collecting objects that own resources other than memory. Resource leaks happen whenever someone forgets to <tt>close()</tt> something in a <tt>finally</tt> block, just as they do in C++ when someone forgets to <tt>delete</tt> or <tt>delete[]</tt> in a destructor or in the exceptional path of a constructor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.</p></div><p>Unless you're in charge of making a PC or phone port of classic C64 games. Then you need to know both Java <em>and</em> C64 assembly language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today we have garbage collectiors in JavaGarbage collectors in Java are good for collecting objects that own only memory but lousy for collecting objects that own resources other than memory .
Resource leaks happen whenever someone forgets to close ( ) something in a finally block , just as they do in C + + when someone forgets to delete or delete [ ] in a destructor or in the exceptional path of a constructor.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java wo n't get a job.Unless you 're in charge of making a PC or phone port of classic C64 games .
Then you need to know both Java and C64 assembly language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today we have garbage collectiors in JavaGarbage collectors in Java are good for collecting objects that own only memory but lousy for collecting objects that own resources other than memory.
Resource leaks happen whenever someone forgets to close() something in a finally block, just as they do in C++ when someone forgets to delete or delete[] in a destructor or in the exceptional path of a constructor.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.Unless you're in charge of making a PC or phone port of classic C64 games.
Then you need to know both Java and C64 assembly language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468394</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>Kvasio</author>
	<datestamp>1268488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could still run notepad.exe and cal.exe from Windows 1.0, sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could still run notepad.exe and cal.exe from Windows 1.0 , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could still run notepad.exe and cal.exe from Windows 1.0, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472268</id>
	<title>Re:Deranged facts</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone is wrong on the internet! ITS YOU!<br>
<br>
Microsoft wrote nearly all the Basic's of the time. Even the Altair (well before Commodore) ended up using Microsoft's Basic after it became apparent that the Basic that Altair's had originally was unsufficient to deal with the modifications people were making to the hardware. This is Microsoft's first Basicproduct, in 1977.<br>
<br>
By 1979, if you wanted Basic on your new machine design, you called up Microsoft. Altair, Commodore, Apple, Atari, IBM.. they all went to Microsoft to get their ROM basics. It may not have had Microsofts logo on it, but it was still written by Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone is wrong on the internet !
ITS YOU !
Microsoft wrote nearly all the Basic 's of the time .
Even the Altair ( well before Commodore ) ended up using Microsoft 's Basic after it became apparent that the Basic that Altair 's had originally was unsufficient to deal with the modifications people were making to the hardware .
This is Microsoft 's first Basicproduct , in 1977 .
By 1979 , if you wanted Basic on your new machine design , you called up Microsoft .
Altair , Commodore , Apple , Atari , IBM.. they all went to Microsoft to get their ROM basics .
It may not have had Microsofts logo on it , but it was still written by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone is wrong on the internet!
ITS YOU!
Microsoft wrote nearly all the Basic's of the time.
Even the Altair (well before Commodore) ended up using Microsoft's Basic after it became apparent that the Basic that Altair's had originally was unsufficient to deal with the modifications people were making to the hardware.
This is Microsoft's first Basicproduct, in 1977.
By 1979, if you wanted Basic on your new machine design, you called up Microsoft.
Altair, Commodore, Apple, Atari, IBM.. they all went to Microsoft to get their ROM basics.
It may not have had Microsofts logo on it, but it was still written by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378</id>
	<title>Deranged facts</title>
	<author>Dagmar d'Surreal</author>
	<datestamp>1268497020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell?

The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was <b>not</b> Microsoft BASIC.  It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language.  Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ?
The Commodore 's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC .
It was just the Commodore 's variant of the BASIC language .
Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?
The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC.
It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language.
Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468738</id>
	<title>And it's about time, too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I can get rid of that old VIC-20!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I can get rid of that old VIC-20 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can get rid of that old VIC-20!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468584</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1268489700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really exact, since the C64 existed in 2 forms: one for the US and one for the Europe.</p><p>I vaguely remember that it introduced a difference in the fast disk-loading routine mentioned in a message above, because there was one cycle of difference (yes, simply a NOP).</p><p>If somebody is interested, I can dig in my very old source code to retrieve this information (I coded several games for the C64 in the years 1985-1988).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really exact , since the C64 existed in 2 forms : one for the US and one for the Europe.I vaguely remember that it introduced a difference in the fast disk-loading routine mentioned in a message above , because there was one cycle of difference ( yes , simply a NOP ) .If somebody is interested , I can dig in my very old source code to retrieve this information ( I coded several games for the C64 in the years 1985-1988 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really exact, since the C64 existed in 2 forms: one for the US and one for the Europe.I vaguely remember that it introduced a difference in the fast disk-loading routine mentioned in a message above, because there was one cycle of difference (yes, simply a NOP).If somebody is interested, I can dig in my very old source code to retrieve this information (I coded several games for the C64 in the years 1985-1988).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31488494</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>Nobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind.  Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so</i> <b>that it would be possible to even <i>attempt</i> to run code made for the computer you bought last year.</b> <p><i>Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model.</i> <b>Thank God that having identical hardware is no longer mandatory to ensure a program will run in the future.</b>

</p><p>There I fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A C64 was exactly the same as every other one , a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it 's kind .
Later models tended to retain as close to 100 \ % backward compatibility as possible so that it would be possible to even attempt to run code made for the computer you bought last year .
Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you wo n't be able to buy more of the exact model .
Thank God that having identical hardware is no longer mandatory to ensure a program will run in the future .
There I fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind.
Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so that it would be possible to even attempt to run code made for the computer you bought last year.
Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model.
Thank God that having identical hardware is no longer mandatory to ensure a program will run in the future.
There I fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467922</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268484540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, I can finally stop waiting and get to programming my Commodore 64!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I can finally stop waiting and get to programming my Commodore 64 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I can finally stop waiting and get to programming my Commodore 64!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930</id>
	<title>6510 Machine Language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268484600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I started on a Commodore 64 (well a Commodore 128 that ran exclusively in 64 mode..) and learned machine language by breaking protections of the day.  Many of the things that were legal back then such as copying software for DRM'd games are now gone the way of the dodo.  I honestly see that in twenty years from now a debugger in itself will be seen as a "tool of crime" or whatever wordage they use to keep them out of the general public's hands just like lock-picks today.  Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government (or more likely Apple) license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I started on a Commodore 64 ( well a Commodore 128 that ran exclusively in 64 mode.. ) and learned machine language by breaking protections of the day .
Many of the things that were legal back then such as copying software for DRM 'd games are now gone the way of the dodo .
I honestly see that in twenty years from now a debugger in itself will be seen as a " tool of crime " or whatever wordage they use to keep them out of the general public 's hands just like lock-picks today .
Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government ( or more likely Apple ) license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started on a Commodore 64 (well a Commodore 128 that ran exclusively in 64 mode..) and learned machine language by breaking protections of the day.
Many of the things that were legal back then such as copying software for DRM'd games are now gone the way of the dodo.
I honestly see that in twenty years from now a debugger in itself will be seen as a "tool of crime" or whatever wordage they use to keep them out of the general public's hands just like lock-picks today.
Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government (or more likely Apple) license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31485160</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, and fuck black people too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , and fuck black people too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, and fuck black people too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468294</id>
	<title>Effieciency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we were able to achieve the level of efficiency that programmers in 1985 got from their hardware on the hardware that exists today, we ourselves would be amazed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we were able to achieve the level of efficiency that programmers in 1985 got from their hardware on the hardware that exists today , we ourselves would be amazed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we were able to achieve the level of efficiency that programmers in 1985 got from their hardware on the hardware that exists today, we ourselves would be amazed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469502</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  I get misty eyed when I think of the 'good ole days'.  Its a bit like a girl I knew who came to North America from the old country (Eastern Europe).  She would reminisce fondly about how things were, even occasionally tearing up.  She went back.  Then came back.  Reminiscing gone.  She fondly recalled friends and family and sights she hadn't seen in a long time.  And that was it.  The rest was a rude re-awakening.  The vast number of golden sunny memories tarnished as she stepped off the plane.  She is fond of her family, and some childhood memories.  She won't let go of them and they still make her tear up.  She was also quite happy to get back on the plane and come back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
I get misty eyed when I think of the 'good ole days' .
Its a bit like a girl I knew who came to North America from the old country ( Eastern Europe ) .
She would reminisce fondly about how things were , even occasionally tearing up .
She went back .
Then came back .
Reminiscing gone .
She fondly recalled friends and family and sights she had n't seen in a long time .
And that was it .
The rest was a rude re-awakening .
The vast number of golden sunny memories tarnished as she stepped off the plane .
She is fond of her family , and some childhood memories .
She wo n't let go of them and they still make her tear up .
She was also quite happy to get back on the plane and come back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
I get misty eyed when I think of the 'good ole days'.
Its a bit like a girl I knew who came to North America from the old country (Eastern Europe).
She would reminisce fondly about how things were, even occasionally tearing up.
She went back.
Then came back.
Reminiscing gone.
She fondly recalled friends and family and sights she hadn't seen in a long time.
And that was it.
The rest was a rude re-awakening.
The vast number of golden sunny memories tarnished as she stepped off the plane.
She is fond of her family, and some childhood memories.
She won't let go of them and they still make her tear up.
She was also quite happy to get back on the plane and come back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468318</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal "accessibility" which leads to more viruses, more "PC" stores like Best Buy/Geek Squad and in general the decline of the computer. Yeah, its great if you are like Geek Squad and can charge $50 to plug in a USB cable and install drivers ( see <a href="http://www.geeksquad.com/services/computer/service.aspx?id=2927" title="geeksquad.com">http://www.geeksquad.com/services/computer/service.aspx?id=2927</a> [geeksquad.com] ) for everyone else? It is a nightmare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal " accessibility " which leads to more viruses , more " PC " stores like Best Buy/Geek Squad and in general the decline of the computer .
Yeah , its great if you are like Geek Squad and can charge $ 50 to plug in a USB cable and install drivers ( see http : //www.geeksquad.com/services/computer/service.aspx ? id = 2927 [ geeksquad.com ] ) for everyone else ?
It is a nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal "accessibility" which leads to more viruses, more "PC" stores like Best Buy/Geek Squad and in general the decline of the computer.
Yeah, its great if you are like Geek Squad and can charge $50 to plug in a USB cable and install drivers ( see http://www.geeksquad.com/services/computer/service.aspx?id=2927 [geeksquad.com] ) for everyone else?
It is a nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468262</id>
	<title>Re:Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1268487060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I make a lot more doing embedded work (last year I did a job on the 6502) than I would make with java.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I make a lot more doing embedded work ( last year I did a job on the 6502 ) than I would make with java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make a lot more doing embedded work (last year I did a job on the 6502) than I would make with java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471706</id>
	<title>Deep Knowing</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1268576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also have this desire.  And it alternately gets me in trouble or lets me write really good code.  It also lets me detect when a system is so poorly documented that nobody really understands the impact of the changes they're making to it.</p><p>When I worked at Amazon, my desire to fully understand the system I was working on really got in my way.  About the only system I could really effectively work on was one I wrote myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have this desire .
And it alternately gets me in trouble or lets me write really good code .
It also lets me detect when a system is so poorly documented that nobody really understands the impact of the changes they 're making to it.When I worked at Amazon , my desire to fully understand the system I was working on really got in my way .
About the only system I could really effectively work on was one I wrote myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have this desire.
And it alternately gets me in trouble or lets me write really good code.
It also lets me detect when a system is so poorly documented that nobody really understands the impact of the changes they're making to it.When I worked at Amazon, my desire to fully understand the system I was working on really got in my way.
About the only system I could really effectively work on was one I wrote myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469414</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1268497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, top 2\%, what are you doing now?<br>I also place myself in the top 2\% and did very well as a freelance programmer for many years. Then I started competing with offshore programmers.<br>Now I'm not a programmer any more. I miss it, but I need to make a living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , top 2 \ % , what are you doing now ? I also place myself in the top 2 \ % and did very well as a freelance programmer for many years .
Then I started competing with offshore programmers.Now I 'm not a programmer any more .
I miss it , but I need to make a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, top 2\%, what are you doing now?I also place myself in the top 2\% and did very well as a freelance programmer for many years.
Then I started competing with offshore programmers.Now I'm not a programmer any more.
I miss it, but I need to make a living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469354</id>
	<title>C64s can still be fun...</title>
	<author>billakay</author>
	<datestamp>1268496780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few years ago when I was an undergrad, I did a class project on the C64 just for the hell of it...the assignment was for my Theory of Computation class, and I happened to be taking an embedded systems class at the same time. I ended up implementing a Turing Machine simulator on the C64. I used a C cross-compiler on my PC to develop it, tested it on an emulator, and eventually burned it onto a ROM chip which I put into an actual cartridge that ran on a real C64. It was a REALLY cool project that involved quite a few different aspects of CS, and I ended up taking first place at a undergrad research poster competition at a CS conference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago when I was an undergrad , I did a class project on the C64 just for the hell of it...the assignment was for my Theory of Computation class , and I happened to be taking an embedded systems class at the same time .
I ended up implementing a Turing Machine simulator on the C64 .
I used a C cross-compiler on my PC to develop it , tested it on an emulator , and eventually burned it onto a ROM chip which I put into an actual cartridge that ran on a real C64 .
It was a REALLY cool project that involved quite a few different aspects of CS , and I ended up taking first place at a undergrad research poster competition at a CS conference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago when I was an undergrad, I did a class project on the C64 just for the hell of it...the assignment was for my Theory of Computation class, and I happened to be taking an embedded systems class at the same time.
I ended up implementing a Turing Machine simulator on the C64.
I used a C cross-compiler on my PC to develop it, tested it on an emulator, and eventually burned it onto a ROM chip which I put into an actual cartridge that ran on a real C64.
It was a REALLY cool project that involved quite a few different aspects of CS, and I ended up taking first place at a undergrad research poster competition at a CS conference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469272</id>
	<title>Try a 1948 computer on for size</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1268496120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google <i>Manchester Baby Mark 1 "programming contest"<i>.</i></i></p><p><i><i><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/21/1436259" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">This</a> [slashdot.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article from 2008.</i></i></p><p><i><i>Now that was a machine you could wrap your head around and actually write bug-free code for!</i></i></p><p><i><i>Pot noodles anyone? *inside joke*</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Manchester Baby Mark 1 " programming contest " .This [ slashdot.org ] / .
article from 2008.Now that was a machine you could wrap your head around and actually write bug-free code for ! Pot noodles anyone ?
* inside joke *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Manchester Baby Mark 1 "programming contest".This [slashdot.org] /.
article from 2008.Now that was a machine you could wrap your head around and actually write bug-free code for!Pot noodles anyone?
*inside joke*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468122</id>
	<title>Want to read Programming the Commodore 64?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should anyone wish to download an electronic copy (PDF) of Programming the Commodore 64 by R. C. West they may do so from <a href="http://www.bombjack.org/commodore/" title="bombjack.org">DLH's Commodore Archive</a> [bombjack.org]. It's a community supported archive of Commodore-related printed materials (books, magazines, newsletters, manuals etc.) and it could use your support. Enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should anyone wish to download an electronic copy ( PDF ) of Programming the Commodore 64 by R. C. West they may do so from DLH 's Commodore Archive [ bombjack.org ] .
It 's a community supported archive of Commodore-related printed materials ( books , magazines , newsletters , manuals etc .
) and it could use your support .
Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should anyone wish to download an electronic copy (PDF) of Programming the Commodore 64 by R. C. West they may do so from DLH's Commodore Archive [bombjack.org].
It's a community supported archive of Commodore-related printed materials (books, magazines, newsletters, manuals etc.
) and it could use your support.
Enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469146</id>
	<title>Did you roll a hoop with a stick?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1268494920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wear knickerbockers?<br>Tie an onion to your belt?</p><p>Change happens, embrace it, or go the way of the dinosaur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wear knickerbockers ? Tie an onion to your belt ? Change happens , embrace it , or go the way of the dinosaur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wear knickerbockers?Tie an onion to your belt?Change happens, embrace it, or go the way of the dinosaur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470126</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268506200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you get more down with a program today than you could with the Apple II?<br>]<br>
&nbsp; ]<br>Wang word processing machines, they'll never go out of fashion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you get more down with a program today than you could with the Apple II ?
]   ] Wang word processing machines , they 'll never go out of fashion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you get more down with a program today than you could with the Apple II?
]
  ]Wang word processing machines, they'll never go out of fashion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471126</id>
	<title>Rae West</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1268566800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does anyone know what Raeto West went on to? I had Programming the Pet-CBM and Programming the Vic20, predecessors to the book in the article, and they were probably the most authoratitive sources for those systems. Rae also had the excellent "Dear Rae" column in CCI magazine.</p><p>But unlike the esteemed Jim Butterfield, Rae sort of disappeared from the scene. A real shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does anyone know what Raeto West went on to ?
I had Programming the Pet-CBM and Programming the Vic20 , predecessors to the book in the article , and they were probably the most authoratitive sources for those systems .
Rae also had the excellent " Dear Rae " column in CCI magazine.But unlike the esteemed Jim Butterfield , Rae sort of disappeared from the scene .
A real shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does anyone know what Raeto West went on to?
I had Programming the Pet-CBM and Programming the Vic20, predecessors to the book in the article, and they were probably the most authoratitive sources for those systems.
Rae also had the excellent "Dear Rae" column in CCI magazine.But unlike the esteemed Jim Butterfield, Rae sort of disappeared from the scene.
A real shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473304</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>fwarren</author>
	<datestamp>1268593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet every day, I put young pups to shame. It does not matter if it is troubleshooting hardware, or software. It does not matter if it is dealing with programing or configuring. My mental map of the problem is different than theirs.</p><p>The skills I learned back in the 80's on a computer that you could understand, I still use today. My "concept" of what a computer is was formed by understanding the whole. RAM, ROM, interrupts, I/O, how the CPU works. All from a machine with 64K or RAM and 20K of ROM.</p><p>Under the hood, under all of that abstraction. Is a PC that is very much like a C64. With the C64 people learned mastery of their system. With the PC, so much hardware is out there. It is impossible to learn it all inside out and take advantage of every feature of it. So greater power has always been obtained in the PC world by moving to faster hardware, not by utilizing the current hardware better. It is all abstraction running on very fast, underutilized hardware.</p><p>The techs coming out of college for the last 20 years do not understand a computer conceptually like those who learned this stuff in the 70's or 80's. When it comes to trouble shooting all of this abstraction, many folks have no idea that there is anything beneath the abstraction.</p><p>I recently attended a college programming class as a requirement for a degree. The instructor gave us a quiz at one point and there was only 5 students out of 60 that passed. Why? Because most students did not know how to write a program on a piece of paper. Without intellisense holding their hand they could not code. I learned to program from the manual that came with my C64. I learned to program better by typing in programs from Compute! Magazine. I have written hundreds of pages of code on paper and typed it into a computer at a later time. It is a skill I take for granted. Without the abstraction of Intellisense most of the class was rendered useless.</p><p>Something has been gained, but something has also been lost. When I was a kid I dreamed of computers that could do a 10th of what they do now. I learned everything I could about them. Lived, dreamed, ate, slept computers, computers, computers. Now days. My kids can buy a laptop with 3 gigs of RAM for the price of a C64 and 1541 drive. And what do they do with it? Program? Nope. They learn their friends on FaceBook, not programming. They play games, not write them. They pirate music, not create it.</p><p>It looks like those who understand a computer and really make it do something will always remain a small, elite Priesthood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet every day , I put young pups to shame .
It does not matter if it is troubleshooting hardware , or software .
It does not matter if it is dealing with programing or configuring .
My mental map of the problem is different than theirs.The skills I learned back in the 80 's on a computer that you could understand , I still use today .
My " concept " of what a computer is was formed by understanding the whole .
RAM , ROM , interrupts , I/O , how the CPU works .
All from a machine with 64K or RAM and 20K of ROM.Under the hood , under all of that abstraction .
Is a PC that is very much like a C64 .
With the C64 people learned mastery of their system .
With the PC , so much hardware is out there .
It is impossible to learn it all inside out and take advantage of every feature of it .
So greater power has always been obtained in the PC world by moving to faster hardware , not by utilizing the current hardware better .
It is all abstraction running on very fast , underutilized hardware.The techs coming out of college for the last 20 years do not understand a computer conceptually like those who learned this stuff in the 70 's or 80 's .
When it comes to trouble shooting all of this abstraction , many folks have no idea that there is anything beneath the abstraction.I recently attended a college programming class as a requirement for a degree .
The instructor gave us a quiz at one point and there was only 5 students out of 60 that passed .
Why ? Because most students did not know how to write a program on a piece of paper .
Without intellisense holding their hand they could not code .
I learned to program from the manual that came with my C64 .
I learned to program better by typing in programs from Compute !
Magazine. I have written hundreds of pages of code on paper and typed it into a computer at a later time .
It is a skill I take for granted .
Without the abstraction of Intellisense most of the class was rendered useless.Something has been gained , but something has also been lost .
When I was a kid I dreamed of computers that could do a 10th of what they do now .
I learned everything I could about them .
Lived , dreamed , ate , slept computers , computers , computers .
Now days .
My kids can buy a laptop with 3 gigs of RAM for the price of a C64 and 1541 drive .
And what do they do with it ?
Program ? Nope .
They learn their friends on FaceBook , not programming .
They play games , not write them .
They pirate music , not create it.It looks like those who understand a computer and really make it do something will always remain a small , elite Priesthood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet every day, I put young pups to shame.
It does not matter if it is troubleshooting hardware, or software.
It does not matter if it is dealing with programing or configuring.
My mental map of the problem is different than theirs.The skills I learned back in the 80's on a computer that you could understand, I still use today.
My "concept" of what a computer is was formed by understanding the whole.
RAM, ROM, interrupts, I/O, how the CPU works.
All from a machine with 64K or RAM and 20K of ROM.Under the hood, under all of that abstraction.
Is a PC that is very much like a C64.
With the C64 people learned mastery of their system.
With the PC, so much hardware is out there.
It is impossible to learn it all inside out and take advantage of every feature of it.
So greater power has always been obtained in the PC world by moving to faster hardware, not by utilizing the current hardware better.
It is all abstraction running on very fast, underutilized hardware.The techs coming out of college for the last 20 years do not understand a computer conceptually like those who learned this stuff in the 70's or 80's.
When it comes to trouble shooting all of this abstraction, many folks have no idea that there is anything beneath the abstraction.I recently attended a college programming class as a requirement for a degree.
The instructor gave us a quiz at one point and there was only 5 students out of 60 that passed.
Why? Because most students did not know how to write a program on a piece of paper.
Without intellisense holding their hand they could not code.
I learned to program from the manual that came with my C64.
I learned to program better by typing in programs from Compute!
Magazine. I have written hundreds of pages of code on paper and typed it into a computer at a later time.
It is a skill I take for granted.
Without the abstraction of Intellisense most of the class was rendered useless.Something has been gained, but something has also been lost.
When I was a kid I dreamed of computers that could do a 10th of what they do now.
I learned everything I could about them.
Lived, dreamed, ate, slept computers, computers, computers.
Now days.
My kids can buy a laptop with 3 gigs of RAM for the price of a C64 and 1541 drive.
And what do they do with it?
Program? Nope.
They learn their friends on FaceBook, not programming.
They play games, not write them.
They pirate music, not create it.It looks like those who understand a computer and really make it do something will always remain a small, elite Priesthood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468612</id>
	<title>Re:Frist psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it took the XE series to get the BASIC right so that bugs were removed and a shorthand parser added to save a bit of typing. The XLs still needed cartridges to get the better version. (I think the Commodore folks mostly missed out on that kind of thing.) And by the time Atari had the 8-bit formula mostly right, all the attention and support moved to the 16-bit ST computers. (Commodore fans did share in this kind of thing with the transition to Amiga. Yet they still had a bigger 8-bit user base to fall back on.)</p><p>Strangely enough, sometimes you also needed an interpreter software to run XL software on an XE. I think that was necessary because some programmers found about the few XL bugs and considered them a feature. We had (have?) our rivalry, but I feel Commodore folks missed out on some of the fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it took the XE series to get the BASIC right so that bugs were removed and a shorthand parser added to save a bit of typing .
The XLs still needed cartridges to get the better version .
( I think the Commodore folks mostly missed out on that kind of thing .
) And by the time Atari had the 8-bit formula mostly right , all the attention and support moved to the 16-bit ST computers .
( Commodore fans did share in this kind of thing with the transition to Amiga .
Yet they still had a bigger 8-bit user base to fall back on .
) Strangely enough , sometimes you also needed an interpreter software to run XL software on an XE .
I think that was necessary because some programmers found about the few XL bugs and considered them a feature .
We had ( have ?
) our rivalry , but I feel Commodore folks missed out on some of the fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it took the XE series to get the BASIC right so that bugs were removed and a shorthand parser added to save a bit of typing.
The XLs still needed cartridges to get the better version.
(I think the Commodore folks mostly missed out on that kind of thing.
) And by the time Atari had the 8-bit formula mostly right, all the attention and support moved to the 16-bit ST computers.
(Commodore fans did share in this kind of thing with the transition to Amiga.
Yet they still had a bigger 8-bit user base to fall back on.
)Strangely enough, sometimes you also needed an interpreter software to run XL software on an XE.
I think that was necessary because some programmers found about the few XL bugs and considered them a feature.
We had (have?
) our rivalry, but I feel Commodore folks missed out on some of the fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468766</id>
	<title>Re:Its still possible..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blame consumerism... I remember my very first introduction to computers: a book (something by PC/Computing, "How a computer works" IIRC) which described only the hardware: modern silicon transistors, how CRTs work, how FDD/HDDs work, what bits/bytes are, difference between serial/parallel etc with pretty, simple pictures in only a few colours.  Only a few years later I first touched one of those things, but by then the book was already worn out!  It was one of my first books at that.  It probably is responsible for my computing interest today.</p><p>The point being, such introductions which emphasise the human side of computers (what you see, touch etc) makes fiddling around with computers a much more gentlemanly affair like music or painting.  Nowhere is work mentioned.</p><p>I wish more books like that were still around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame consumerism... I remember my very first introduction to computers : a book ( something by PC/Computing , " How a computer works " IIRC ) which described only the hardware : modern silicon transistors , how CRTs work , how FDD/HDDs work , what bits/bytes are , difference between serial/parallel etc with pretty , simple pictures in only a few colours .
Only a few years later I first touched one of those things , but by then the book was already worn out !
It was one of my first books at that .
It probably is responsible for my computing interest today.The point being , such introductions which emphasise the human side of computers ( what you see , touch etc ) makes fiddling around with computers a much more gentlemanly affair like music or painting .
Nowhere is work mentioned.I wish more books like that were still around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame consumerism... I remember my very first introduction to computers: a book (something by PC/Computing, "How a computer works" IIRC) which described only the hardware: modern silicon transistors, how CRTs work, how FDD/HDDs work, what bits/bytes are, difference between serial/parallel etc with pretty, simple pictures in only a few colours.
Only a few years later I first touched one of those things, but by then the book was already worn out!
It was one of my first books at that.
It probably is responsible for my computing interest today.The point being, such introductions which emphasise the human side of computers (what you see, touch etc) makes fiddling around with computers a much more gentlemanly affair like music or painting.
Nowhere is work mentioned.I wish more books like that were still around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471528</id>
	<title>I really, really like to understand things...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1268574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for example, I go over mechanical stuff very thouroughly to know how it works.</p><p>But even then, I don't know \_exactly\_ why steel is more durable than iron. As in on the molecular, atomar and sub-atomar levels. You have to draw the line \_somewhere\_.</p><p>And if I have to choose between a C64 I can understand completely (for some value of) and the Thinkpad 201s I have been drooling over recently... Well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for example , I go over mechanical stuff very thouroughly to know how it works.But even then , I do n't know \ _exactly \ _ why steel is more durable than iron .
As in on the molecular , atomar and sub-atomar levels .
You have to draw the line \ _somewhere \ _.And if I have to choose between a C64 I can understand completely ( for some value of ) and the Thinkpad 201s I have been drooling over recently... Well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for example, I go over mechanical stuff very thouroughly to know how it works.But even then, I don't know \_exactly\_ why steel is more durable than iron.
As in on the molecular, atomar and sub-atomar levels.
You have to draw the line \_somewhere\_.And if I have to choose between a C64 I can understand completely (for some value of) and the Thinkpad 201s I have been drooling over recently... Well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468270</id>
	<title>Re:6510 Machine Language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government (or more likely Apple) license.</p></div><p>Kook alert</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government ( or more likely Apple ) license.Kook alert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope you like high-level because the day is coming that it will be illegal to be low-level without a government (or more likely Apple) license.Kook alert
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468116</id>
	<title>Why lament?</title>
	<author>smackenzie</author>
	<datestamp>1268485860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why "lament the decline of that kind of deep knowing?"  Shouldn't we just encourage teens, students, hobbyists, computer science majors (e.g., anyone with an interest in this kind of thing) to get out there and buy a C64 or a kit or an open source game machine or an embedded device or any of the other numerous projects in which we could pursue "deep knowing"?<br>
<br>
Frankly, it's a great time to be interested in computers: absurd amounts of power for cheap, \_along with\_ easy access (thank you Internet) to kits, information, software, books, older devices, embedded devices, game devices, community help, etc.<br>
<br>
It doesn't have to be either or.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why " lament the decline of that kind of deep knowing ?
" Should n't we just encourage teens , students , hobbyists , computer science majors ( e.g. , anyone with an interest in this kind of thing ) to get out there and buy a C64 or a kit or an open source game machine or an embedded device or any of the other numerous projects in which we could pursue " deep knowing " ?
Frankly , it 's a great time to be interested in computers : absurd amounts of power for cheap , \ _along with \ _ easy access ( thank you Internet ) to kits , information , software , books , older devices , embedded devices , game devices , community help , etc .
It does n't have to be either or .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why "lament the decline of that kind of deep knowing?
"  Shouldn't we just encourage teens, students, hobbyists, computer science majors (e.g., anyone with an interest in this kind of thing) to get out there and buy a C64 or a kit or an open source game machine or an embedded device or any of the other numerous projects in which we could pursue "deep knowing"?
Frankly, it's a great time to be interested in computers: absurd amounts of power for cheap, \_along with\_ easy access (thank you Internet) to kits, information, software, books, older devices, embedded devices, game devices, community help, etc.
It doesn't have to be either or.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</id>
	<title>Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1268484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories (even if it is only a python interpreter). Let's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal accessibility, to even the novice programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in 2010 it 's not necessary to understand the whole computer , from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories ( even if it is only a python interpreter ) .
Let 's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal accessibility , to even the novice programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up through device drivers and the kernel through to the high-level language that came from your apt repositories (even if it is only a python interpreter).
Let's celebrate the rise of this sort of universal accessibility, to even the novice programmer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468388</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268488020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even in those days I am sure there were lusers happily doing their jobs on a VT100 or similar terminal. Starting with a menu or simple command set was not so different from a GUI today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in those days I am sure there were lusers happily doing their jobs on a VT100 or similar terminal .
Starting with a menu or simple command set was not so different from a GUI today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in those days I am sure there were lusers happily doing their jobs on a VT100 or similar terminal.
Starting with a menu or simple command set was not so different from a GUI today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036</id>
	<title>Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.</p><p>Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.</p><p>You probably don't even know the latest words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java wo n't get a job.You probably do n't even know the latest words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.You probably don't even know the latest words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471196</id>
	<title>Re:Deranged facts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the hell?

The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was <b>not</b> Microsoft BASIC.  It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language.  Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.</p></div><p>Uhm. yes, they did, as a simple search would have given you tons of detailed info and history on. Among many: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore\_BASIC" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore\_BASIC</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ?
The Commodore 's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC .
It was just the Commodore 's variant of the BASIC language .
Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.Uhm .
yes , they did , as a simple search would have given you tons of detailed info and history on .
Among many : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore \ _BASIC [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?
The Commodore's BASIC interpreter was not Microsoft BASIC.
It was just the Commodore's variant of the BASIC language.
Microsoft had not a bloody thing to do with it.Uhm.
yes, they did, as a simple search would have given you tons of detailed info and history on.
Among many: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore\_BASIC [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469996</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1268504760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could spend months just trying to optimize a single large algorithm for a single video card (Terrain rendering) - there are now so many different ways of organizing data, pipelining routines between CPU, compute languages/CUDA and the GPU. The average GPU is now more powerful than a supercomputer from the 1980's.</p><p>While the hardware for home computers remained the same, programmers were rapidly learning how to different things. We went from text only games in the six months of release, to custom character sets, single sprite block characters, to multi-sprite block characters, scrolling multi-level screens, isometric views, pseudo-3d racing game tracks, digitized speech, all within ten years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could spend months just trying to optimize a single large algorithm for a single video card ( Terrain rendering ) - there are now so many different ways of organizing data , pipelining routines between CPU , compute languages/CUDA and the GPU .
The average GPU is now more powerful than a supercomputer from the 1980 's.While the hardware for home computers remained the same , programmers were rapidly learning how to different things .
We went from text only games in the six months of release , to custom character sets , single sprite block characters , to multi-sprite block characters , scrolling multi-level screens , isometric views , pseudo-3d racing game tracks , digitized speech , all within ten years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could spend months just trying to optimize a single large algorithm for a single video card (Terrain rendering) - there are now so many different ways of organizing data, pipelining routines between CPU, compute languages/CUDA and the GPU.
The average GPU is now more powerful than a supercomputer from the 1980's.While the hardware for home computers remained the same, programmers were rapidly learning how to different things.
We went from text only games in the six months of release, to custom character sets, single sprite block characters, to multi-sprite block characters, scrolling multi-level screens, isometric views, pseudo-3d racing game tracks, digitized speech, all within ten years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468732</id>
	<title>Re:Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.</p><p>Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.</p><p>You probably don't even know the latest words.</p></div><p>Oh, I don't know about that. There are thousands of embedded systems that need programming and require the kind of thorough knowledge of the hardware that you got from the old C64 days. There are more 8-, 16- and 32-bit systems without enough memory to run something like Java than there are PCs and higher class systems.</p><p>Don't pooh-pooh the old ways. They're what's running your world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java wo n't get a job.You probably do n't even know the latest words.Oh , I do n't know about that .
There are thousands of embedded systems that need programming and require the kind of thorough knowledge of the hardware that you got from the old C64 days .
There are more 8- , 16- and 32-bit systems without enough memory to run something like Java than there are PCs and higher class systems.Do n't pooh-pooh the old ways .
They 're what 's running your world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today we have garbage collectiors in Java and that is why the C64 is completely outdated.Everyone who still writes code on the C64 instead of Java won't get a job.You probably don't even know the latest words.Oh, I don't know about that.
There are thousands of embedded systems that need programming and require the kind of thorough knowledge of the hardware that you got from the old C64 days.
There are more 8-, 16- and 32-bit systems without enough memory to run something like Java than there are PCs and higher class systems.Don't pooh-pooh the old ways.
They're what's running your world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471168</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268567700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Sure, we generally don't know the whole widget from top to bottom, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running. It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.''</p><p>I actually have a different perspective on that.</p><p>It used to be that your computer came with a BASIC implementation easily accessible. Since BASIC is also very easy to get started with, getting started with programming was very, very easy.</p><p>Nowadays, getting started with programming is often much harder. Many computers don't ship with development tools anymore. Many languages in common use are quite a bit harder to get started with (how many concepts are in your Hello World in BASIC, and how many in Java?). You will also typically have to choose from among the myriad of libraries and frameworks, or get the choices forced upon you, and you will have to learn the concepts employed in those, too. And whereas it was normal back in the day to know how your computer actually worked, only a fraction of programmers know this nowadays - a situation which is not helped by hardware manufacturers actually refusing to disclose it to you.</p><p>It's not all doom and gloom, but there are certainly things that were better back in the day. It certainly seems to me that both the barrier to entry and the amount of effort you had to put in to really know all the ins and outs was lower in the home computer era than it is now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Sure , we generally do n't know the whole widget from top to bottom , but it 's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running .
It 's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then , or the assembly language tools we had .
''I actually have a different perspective on that.It used to be that your computer came with a BASIC implementation easily accessible .
Since BASIC is also very easy to get started with , getting started with programming was very , very easy.Nowadays , getting started with programming is often much harder .
Many computers do n't ship with development tools anymore .
Many languages in common use are quite a bit harder to get started with ( how many concepts are in your Hello World in BASIC , and how many in Java ? ) .
You will also typically have to choose from among the myriad of libraries and frameworks , or get the choices forced upon you , and you will have to learn the concepts employed in those , too .
And whereas it was normal back in the day to know how your computer actually worked , only a fraction of programmers know this nowadays - a situation which is not helped by hardware manufacturers actually refusing to disclose it to you.It 's not all doom and gloom , but there are certainly things that were better back in the day .
It certainly seems to me that both the barrier to entry and the amount of effort you had to put in to really know all the ins and outs was lower in the home computer era than it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Sure, we generally don't know the whole widget from top to bottom, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get a program up and running.
It's not just frameworks either - the choice of languages we have today beats the crappy BASIC we had then, or the assembly language tools we had.
''I actually have a different perspective on that.It used to be that your computer came with a BASIC implementation easily accessible.
Since BASIC is also very easy to get started with, getting started with programming was very, very easy.Nowadays, getting started with programming is often much harder.
Many computers don't ship with development tools anymore.
Many languages in common use are quite a bit harder to get started with (how many concepts are in your Hello World in BASIC, and how many in Java?).
You will also typically have to choose from among the myriad of libraries and frameworks, or get the choices forced upon you, and you will have to learn the concepts employed in those, too.
And whereas it was normal back in the day to know how your computer actually worked, only a fraction of programmers know this nowadays - a situation which is not helped by hardware manufacturers actually refusing to disclose it to you.It's not all doom and gloom, but there are certainly things that were better back in the day.
It certainly seems to me that both the barrier to entry and the amount of effort you had to put in to really know all the ins and outs was lower in the home computer era than it is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468804</id>
	<title>The Deep Magic is still there...</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1268491680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The deep knowledge is still there - the well is just a LOT deeper, and more complex.</p><p>In the days of the C64 - it was reasonable for a skilled and/or curious programmer to get to the bottom of things and learn how everything worked, exactly.  It was also potentially USEFUL for him to do this.... it was the only direction you could go, short of inventing a new language.</p><p>So - today we still find deep knowledge out there - but it just not be as useful for even a very good programmer to go ALL the way down.</p><p>Yes, a Java programmer should know more than just the surface - and more than just the patterns.  He could also go deeper and understand the JVM implementation, and to a degree how it uses actual machine resources - but to suggest he needs to all the way down the rabbit hole is taking it a bit far.</p><p>My point, I guess, is that there is no need to pine for the old days - nobody says you can't learn more and go deep, and those who do, tend to prosper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deep knowledge is still there - the well is just a LOT deeper , and more complex.In the days of the C64 - it was reasonable for a skilled and/or curious programmer to get to the bottom of things and learn how everything worked , exactly .
It was also potentially USEFUL for him to do this.... it was the only direction you could go , short of inventing a new language.So - today we still find deep knowledge out there - but it just not be as useful for even a very good programmer to go ALL the way down.Yes , a Java programmer should know more than just the surface - and more than just the patterns .
He could also go deeper and understand the JVM implementation , and to a degree how it uses actual machine resources - but to suggest he needs to all the way down the rabbit hole is taking it a bit far.My point , I guess , is that there is no need to pine for the old days - nobody says you ca n't learn more and go deep , and those who do , tend to prosper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deep knowledge is still there - the well is just a LOT deeper, and more complex.In the days of the C64 - it was reasonable for a skilled and/or curious programmer to get to the bottom of things and learn how everything worked, exactly.
It was also potentially USEFUL for him to do this.... it was the only direction you could go, short of inventing a new language.So - today we still find deep knowledge out there - but it just not be as useful for even a very good programmer to go ALL the way down.Yes, a Java programmer should know more than just the surface - and more than just the patterns.
He could also go deeper and understand the JVM implementation, and to a degree how it uses actual machine resources - but to suggest he needs to all the way down the rabbit hole is taking it a bit far.My point, I guess, is that there is no need to pine for the old days - nobody says you can't learn more and go deep, and those who do, tend to prosper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31493344</id>
	<title>Commodore 64 - My Childhood Friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268740260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amazing thing about this computer was it's ability to attract my tortoise's attention. Those two got on like a house on fire. Made it impossible for me to compete of Barry McGuigan's Boxing!</p><p>Just bought one from here: <a href="http://www.treidr.com/category/299/Electronics.html" title="treidr.com" rel="nofollow">Free Computer Classified Ads</a> [treidr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing about this computer was it 's ability to attract my tortoise 's attention .
Those two got on like a house on fire .
Made it impossible for me to compete of Barry McGuigan 's Boxing ! Just bought one from here : Free Computer Classified Ads [ treidr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing about this computer was it's ability to attract my tortoise's attention.
Those two got on like a house on fire.
Made it impossible for me to compete of Barry McGuigan's Boxing!Just bought one from here: Free Computer Classified Ads [treidr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470158</id>
	<title>Re:If you miss the 8-bit era...</title>
	<author>vertigoCiel</author>
	<datestamp>1268506740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a youngin' myself, so I wasn't around for these "good ol' days." However, I recently got hooked on AVR microcontrollers via Arduino, and I'm loving it. Being able to have total control and understanding of the hardware, to hold the entire execution context in ones head, is exhilarating. My laptop is more or less a black box that I stick my code into, but with these AVR chips I understand exactly what's going on with each and every instruction, and there's simply nothing that I can't do.</p><p>Right now I'm working on a threads system for the ATMega family of microcontrollers. It's tons of fun, and I'm learning a lot, not only about the hardware and assembly programming, but also about how my "real computer" and "real languages" work (for example, what exactly is going on when function calls happen).</p><p>I can't recommend these things strongly enough. I think that it's an essential experience for any programmer, and if you've just started programming in the past five years or so, chances are you haven't dealt with anything like it. Even if you have, you can still do tons of nifty stuff with these things, and they're only $30 for <a href="http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product\_info.php?products\_id=666" title="sparkfun.com">a ready-to-program, USB package</a> [sparkfun.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a youngin ' myself , so I was n't around for these " good ol ' days .
" However , I recently got hooked on AVR microcontrollers via Arduino , and I 'm loving it .
Being able to have total control and understanding of the hardware , to hold the entire execution context in ones head , is exhilarating .
My laptop is more or less a black box that I stick my code into , but with these AVR chips I understand exactly what 's going on with each and every instruction , and there 's simply nothing that I ca n't do.Right now I 'm working on a threads system for the ATMega family of microcontrollers .
It 's tons of fun , and I 'm learning a lot , not only about the hardware and assembly programming , but also about how my " real computer " and " real languages " work ( for example , what exactly is going on when function calls happen ) .I ca n't recommend these things strongly enough .
I think that it 's an essential experience for any programmer , and if you 've just started programming in the past five years or so , chances are you have n't dealt with anything like it .
Even if you have , you can still do tons of nifty stuff with these things , and they 're only $ 30 for a ready-to-program , USB package [ sparkfun.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a youngin' myself, so I wasn't around for these "good ol' days.
" However, I recently got hooked on AVR microcontrollers via Arduino, and I'm loving it.
Being able to have total control and understanding of the hardware, to hold the entire execution context in ones head, is exhilarating.
My laptop is more or less a black box that I stick my code into, but with these AVR chips I understand exactly what's going on with each and every instruction, and there's simply nothing that I can't do.Right now I'm working on a threads system for the ATMega family of microcontrollers.
It's tons of fun, and I'm learning a lot, not only about the hardware and assembly programming, but also about how my "real computer" and "real languages" work (for example, what exactly is going on when function calls happen).I can't recommend these things strongly enough.
I think that it's an essential experience for any programmer, and if you've just started programming in the past five years or so, chances are you haven't dealt with anything like it.
Even if you have, you can still do tons of nifty stuff with these things, and they're only $30 for a ready-to-program, USB package [sparkfun.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470776</id>
	<title>First Post!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268561040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am using a Commodore 64!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am using a Commodore 64 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am using a Commodore 64!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31476526</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>ezratrumpet</author>
	<datestamp>1268574600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I would've done nearly anything to get that book when I was 12. <br> <br>I would've learned everything in it. I was starving to know the mysteries that little machine held, to command its magic for myself and CREATE beautiful, elegant things.<br> <br>Such books weren't available in the mountains. Now they all have interwebs, and I'm just about ruthless with those who take instant knowledge for granted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I would 've done nearly anything to get that book when I was 12 .
I would 've learned everything in it .
I was starving to know the mysteries that little machine held , to command its magic for myself and CREATE beautiful , elegant things .
Such books were n't available in the mountains .
Now they all have interwebs , and I 'm just about ruthless with those who take instant knowledge for granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I would've done nearly anything to get that book when I was 12.
I would've learned everything in it.
I was starving to know the mysteries that little machine held, to command its magic for myself and CREATE beautiful, elegant things.
Such books weren't available in the mountains.
Now they all have interwebs, and I'm just about ruthless with those who take instant knowledge for granted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468568</id>
	<title>Best covered by Ellen Ullman in 1998</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1268489520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov\_12feature.html" title="salon.com">http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov\_12feature.html</a> [salon.com]</p><p>Ellen Ullman was a programmer for a full career before she discovered she was also a talented writer.  The above link is to a Salon.com article that was basically an excerpt from her excellent book, "Close to the Machine".</p><p>She writes about getting a PC and stripping off Windows, DOS, everything, until the (old even for 1998) BIOS is saying "Basic Not Loaded", then building Linux on it.</p><p>Her conclusions do sound a smidge "kids these days" when she writes about modern programmers that only know libraries and IDEs, but I know the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. gang will love it:</p><p>"Most of the programming team consisted of programmers who had great facility with Windows, Microsoft Visual C++ and the Foundation Classes. In no time at all, it seemed, they had generated many screenfuls of windows and toolbars and dialogs, all with connections to networks and data sources, thousands and thousands of lines of code. But when the inevitable difficulties of debugging came, they seemed at sea. In the face of the usual weird and unexplainable outcomes, they stood a bit agog. It was left to the UNIX-trained programmers to fix things. The UNIX team members were accustomed to having to know. Their view of programming as language-as-text gave them the patience to look slowly through the code. In the end, the overall "productivity" of the system, the fact that it came into being at all, was the handiwork not of tools that sought to make programming seem easy, but the work of engineers who had no fear of "hard."<br>---</p><p>I do recall some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. (or maybe it's in Salon) commenter at the time who replied, "Yeah, and your Dad thinks you're a weenie because you don't know how to wire transistors on a circuit board, and his Dad thinks he's a weenie because he can't wind the copper wire around his own inductors".   Which is fair enough.  Even log cabins can't be made without manufactured tools unless you can mold a kiln from clay and smelt iron for the axe yourself.</p><p>Still, the point of the desire is to have *maximum* control of the level of tool you are able to work directly with.  The philosophy was echoed by Neal Stephenson in his essay, "In the Beginning Was the Command Line", the googling of which I will leave to the student.  It's on-line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov \ _12feature.html [ salon.com ] Ellen Ullman was a programmer for a full career before she discovered she was also a talented writer .
The above link is to a Salon.com article that was basically an excerpt from her excellent book , " Close to the Machine " .She writes about getting a PC and stripping off Windows , DOS , everything , until the ( old even for 1998 ) BIOS is saying " Basic Not Loaded " , then building Linux on it.Her conclusions do sound a smidge " kids these days " when she writes about modern programmers that only know libraries and IDEs , but I know the / .
gang will love it : " Most of the programming team consisted of programmers who had great facility with Windows , Microsoft Visual C + + and the Foundation Classes .
In no time at all , it seemed , they had generated many screenfuls of windows and toolbars and dialogs , all with connections to networks and data sources , thousands and thousands of lines of code .
But when the inevitable difficulties of debugging came , they seemed at sea .
In the face of the usual weird and unexplainable outcomes , they stood a bit agog .
It was left to the UNIX-trained programmers to fix things .
The UNIX team members were accustomed to having to know .
Their view of programming as language-as-text gave them the patience to look slowly through the code .
In the end , the overall " productivity " of the system , the fact that it came into being at all , was the handiwork not of tools that sought to make programming seem easy , but the work of engineers who had no fear of " hard .
" ---I do recall some / .
( or maybe it 's in Salon ) commenter at the time who replied , " Yeah , and your Dad thinks you 're a weenie because you do n't know how to wire transistors on a circuit board , and his Dad thinks he 's a weenie because he ca n't wind the copper wire around his own inductors " .
Which is fair enough .
Even log cabins ca n't be made without manufactured tools unless you can mold a kiln from clay and smelt iron for the axe yourself.Still , the point of the desire is to have * maximum * control of the level of tool you are able to work directly with .
The philosophy was echoed by Neal Stephenson in his essay , " In the Beginning Was the Command Line " , the googling of which I will leave to the student .
It 's on-line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov\_12feature.html [salon.com]Ellen Ullman was a programmer for a full career before she discovered she was also a talented writer.
The above link is to a Salon.com article that was basically an excerpt from her excellent book, "Close to the Machine".She writes about getting a PC and stripping off Windows, DOS, everything, until the (old even for 1998) BIOS is saying "Basic Not Loaded", then building Linux on it.Her conclusions do sound a smidge "kids these days" when she writes about modern programmers that only know libraries and IDEs, but I know the /.
gang will love it:"Most of the programming team consisted of programmers who had great facility with Windows, Microsoft Visual C++ and the Foundation Classes.
In no time at all, it seemed, they had generated many screenfuls of windows and toolbars and dialogs, all with connections to networks and data sources, thousands and thousands of lines of code.
But when the inevitable difficulties of debugging came, they seemed at sea.
In the face of the usual weird and unexplainable outcomes, they stood a bit agog.
It was left to the UNIX-trained programmers to fix things.
The UNIX team members were accustomed to having to know.
Their view of programming as language-as-text gave them the patience to look slowly through the code.
In the end, the overall "productivity" of the system, the fact that it came into being at all, was the handiwork not of tools that sought to make programming seem easy, but the work of engineers who had no fear of "hard.
"---I do recall some /.
(or maybe it's in Salon) commenter at the time who replied, "Yeah, and your Dad thinks you're a weenie because you don't know how to wire transistors on a circuit board, and his Dad thinks he's a weenie because he can't wind the copper wire around his own inductors".
Which is fair enough.
Even log cabins can't be made without manufactured tools unless you can mold a kiln from clay and smelt iron for the axe yourself.Still, the point of the desire is to have *maximum* control of the level of tool you are able to work directly with.
The philosophy was echoed by Neal Stephenson in his essay, "In the Beginning Was the Command Line", the googling of which I will leave to the student.
It's on-line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468344</id>
	<title>Re:"Tape Storage" image turns to goatse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469060</id>
	<title>I miss my Apple ][e!</title>
	<author>nullhero</author>
	<datestamp>1268494020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the monochrome green on black monitor that came with the set up. I remember the huge boxes that the computer &amp; the separate one for the monitor was in. (Compared to the slim box that my MacBook Pro came in.) I loved peeking and poking my way through programming in AppleSoft Basic. I even cut my teeth learning assembly. It was fun! It was what I loved about learning to program.

This article reminded my of the long gone days. I still enjoy learning new languages but I miss my Apple ][e in so many ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the monochrome green on black monitor that came with the set up .
I remember the huge boxes that the computer &amp; the separate one for the monitor was in .
( Compared to the slim box that my MacBook Pro came in .
) I loved peeking and poking my way through programming in AppleSoft Basic .
I even cut my teeth learning assembly .
It was fun !
It was what I loved about learning to program .
This article reminded my of the long gone days .
I still enjoy learning new languages but I miss my Apple ] [ e in so many ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the monochrome green on black monitor that came with the set up.
I remember the huge boxes that the computer &amp; the separate one for the monitor was in.
(Compared to the slim box that my MacBook Pro came in.
) I loved peeking and poking my way through programming in AppleSoft Basic.
I even cut my teeth learning assembly.
It was fun!
It was what I loved about learning to program.
This article reminded my of the long gone days.
I still enjoy learning new languages but I miss my Apple ][e in so many ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468610</id>
	<title>That evokes so many great memories...</title>
	<author>aniemeye</author>
	<datestamp>1268489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..., almost like finding a long lost and cherished childhood toy. I remember my Apple II days, programming assembler, writing routines to directly address the disk drives. Then my project for the computer science class we had in High School (Germany 1984), where I had gotten my hands on a disassembly of the entire ROMs and from that figuring out how the mathematical formula interpretation worked (simulated stack and all). Finally, a year later, getting my hands on the schematics and figuring out how the video logic actually worked.

Only once did I feel that powerful again in my life, when I recreated that feeling in 1996 by designing, building and programming an embedded 68000 computer for a piece of medical diagnostic equipment. Designed the system, built the prototype, debugged the hardware, routed the PCB (by hand, we had no money), wrote a round-robin multitasking system in assembler and finally the actual application as well. Still have a copy.

That, and the discovery of sex<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... , almost like finding a long lost and cherished childhood toy .
I remember my Apple II days , programming assembler , writing routines to directly address the disk drives .
Then my project for the computer science class we had in High School ( Germany 1984 ) , where I had gotten my hands on a disassembly of the entire ROMs and from that figuring out how the mathematical formula interpretation worked ( simulated stack and all ) .
Finally , a year later , getting my hands on the schematics and figuring out how the video logic actually worked .
Only once did I feel that powerful again in my life , when I recreated that feeling in 1996 by designing , building and programming an embedded 68000 computer for a piece of medical diagnostic equipment .
Designed the system , built the prototype , debugged the hardware , routed the PCB ( by hand , we had no money ) , wrote a round-robin multitasking system in assembler and finally the actual application as well .
Still have a copy .
That , and the discovery of sex : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..., almost like finding a long lost and cherished childhood toy.
I remember my Apple II days, programming assembler, writing routines to directly address the disk drives.
Then my project for the computer science class we had in High School (Germany 1984), where I had gotten my hands on a disassembly of the entire ROMs and from that figuring out how the mathematical formula interpretation worked (simulated stack and all).
Finally, a year later, getting my hands on the schematics and figuring out how the video logic actually worked.
Only once did I feel that powerful again in my life, when I recreated that feeling in 1996 by designing, building and programming an embedded 68000 computer for a piece of medical diagnostic equipment.
Designed the system, built the prototype, debugged the hardware, routed the PCB (by hand, we had no money), wrote a round-robin multitasking system in assembler and finally the actual application as well.
Still have a copy.
That, and the discovery of sex :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468192</id>
	<title>It still is possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268486580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up..."</p><p>It still is, many of us do.  A good place to start is with an embedded system.<br>Starting with an FPGA even opens up things that were Black Boxes to us in the 80's.</p><p>A PC is not any more complex.  Really.</p><p>Windows being closed has had \_exactly\_ the effect RMS feared that led to the GNU<br>project, and directly to this story.  If it were not for that, I think many would agree that<br>the situation is actually better today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer , from the hardware up... " It still is , many of us do .
A good place to start is with an embedded system.Starting with an FPGA even opens up things that were Black Boxes to us in the 80 's.A PC is not any more complex .
Really.Windows being closed has had \ _exactly \ _ the effect RMS feared that led to the GNUproject , and directly to this story .
If it were not for that , I think many would agree thatthe situation is actually better today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in 1985 it was possible to understand the whole computer, from the hardware up..."It still is, many of us do.
A good place to start is with an embedded system.Starting with an FPGA even opens up things that were Black Boxes to us in the 80's.A PC is not any more complex.
Really.Windows being closed has had \_exactly\_ the effect RMS feared that led to the GNUproject, and directly to this story.
If it were not for that, I think many would agree thatthe situation is actually better today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468534</id>
	<title>Re:Its still possible..</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1268489280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions, more memory, more peripherals that runs faster</p></div><p>
Possible, but nowhere near as easy.  I've read most of volume 3A of Intel's architecture reference while doing background reading for my Xen book, but the complete architecture reference is well over 3,000 pages.  The GPU reference - if you can get it - is a similar length, and that's before you get to the OS.  The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System is 720 pages.  It's a good book, but it skips over a lot of details.  The copy of the X11 protocol reference that I read was several hundred pages, and it's a few revisions old.  The OpenGL reference was a similar length.  But now you can do 2D and 3D graphics and, once you've read the C spec (not so bad, only a couple of hundred pages) and spent some time familiarising yourself with your C compiler and standard library you can draw things. </p><p>
To get the level of understanding that the original poster is talking about, on a modern computer, means reading and remembering around 10,000 pages of reference books, and gaining familiarity with the source code that they mention.  And that's just going to give you one CPU architecture and the core bits of the OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions , more memory , more peripherals that runs faster Possible , but nowhere near as easy .
I 've read most of volume 3A of Intel 's architecture reference while doing background reading for my Xen book , but the complete architecture reference is well over 3,000 pages .
The GPU reference - if you can get it - is a similar length , and that 's before you get to the OS .
The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System is 720 pages .
It 's a good book , but it skips over a lot of details .
The copy of the X11 protocol reference that I read was several hundred pages , and it 's a few revisions old .
The OpenGL reference was a similar length .
But now you can do 2D and 3D graphics and , once you 've read the C spec ( not so bad , only a couple of hundred pages ) and spent some time familiarising yourself with your C compiler and standard library you can draw things .
To get the level of understanding that the original poster is talking about , on a modern computer , means reading and remembering around 10,000 pages of reference books , and gaining familiarity with the source code that they mention .
And that 's just going to give you one CPU architecture and the core bits of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Octocore Core i13 and a half is just a fancy C64 with more CPU instructions, more memory, more peripherals that runs faster
Possible, but nowhere near as easy.
I've read most of volume 3A of Intel's architecture reference while doing background reading for my Xen book, but the complete architecture reference is well over 3,000 pages.
The GPU reference - if you can get it - is a similar length, and that's before you get to the OS.
The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System is 720 pages.
It's a good book, but it skips over a lot of details.
The copy of the X11 protocol reference that I read was several hundred pages, and it's a few revisions old.
The OpenGL reference was a similar length.
But now you can do 2D and 3D graphics and, once you've read the C spec (not so bad, only a couple of hundred pages) and spent some time familiarising yourself with your C compiler and standard library you can draw things.
To get the level of understanding that the original poster is talking about, on a modern computer, means reading and remembering around 10,000 pages of reference books, and gaining familiarity with the source code that they mention.
And that's just going to give you one CPU architecture and the core bits of the OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31474152</id>
	<title>Re:Misty-Eyed Nostalgia</title>
	<author>howzit</author>
	<datestamp>1268557440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before my C64 I had a VIC2o, but the funnest was a Heathkit DIY computer that had a 'HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE'!
It was called TINY BASIC and tiny it was. It only had 12 commands! Was like explaining to someone over the phone what to do, but only having 12 words to explain it to him. Yes, it was EXACTLY like that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before my C64 I had a VIC2o , but the funnest was a Heathkit DIY computer that had a 'HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE ' !
It was called TINY BASIC and tiny it was .
It only had 12 commands !
Was like explaining to someone over the phone what to do , but only having 12 words to explain it to him .
Yes , it was EXACTLY like that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before my C64 I had a VIC2o, but the funnest was a Heathkit DIY computer that had a 'HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE'!
It was called TINY BASIC and tiny it was.
It only had 12 commands!
Was like explaining to someone over the phone what to do, but only having 12 words to explain it to him.
Yes, it was EXACTLY like that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469444</id>
	<title>A computer that fits in your head can be great fun</title>
	<author>LodCrappo</author>
	<datestamp>1268497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've recently rediscovered the joy of small computers that can be fully understood by one person.  The 8 bit machines from the 80s provide opportunities for learning and experimentation that are not present in today's computers.  "Retro computing" is growing as a hobby amongst both people who remember these machines fondly from past days and younger folks who just find them interesting.  It is strictly a hobby of course, very little "useful" stuff can be done with these boxes beyond the education they can provide.</p><p>My favorite retro system is OS-9, a real time multitasking operating system that you can fit in your head.  There is an open source version called <a href="http://www.nitros9.org/" title="nitros9.org">NitrOS-9</a> [nitros9.org] which has excellent documentation and most of the code well commented.  It runs on 6809 based computers like the Tandy Color Computer and the Tano Dragon.</p><p>You can learn a tremendous amount about process scheduling, IPC, memory management, device drivers and low level I/O, etc from playing with this system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently rediscovered the joy of small computers that can be fully understood by one person .
The 8 bit machines from the 80s provide opportunities for learning and experimentation that are not present in today 's computers .
" Retro computing " is growing as a hobby amongst both people who remember these machines fondly from past days and younger folks who just find them interesting .
It is strictly a hobby of course , very little " useful " stuff can be done with these boxes beyond the education they can provide.My favorite retro system is OS-9 , a real time multitasking operating system that you can fit in your head .
There is an open source version called NitrOS-9 [ nitros9.org ] which has excellent documentation and most of the code well commented .
It runs on 6809 based computers like the Tandy Color Computer and the Tano Dragon.You can learn a tremendous amount about process scheduling , IPC , memory management , device drivers and low level I/O , etc from playing with this system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently rediscovered the joy of small computers that can be fully understood by one person.
The 8 bit machines from the 80s provide opportunities for learning and experimentation that are not present in today's computers.
"Retro computing" is growing as a hobby amongst both people who remember these machines fondly from past days and younger folks who just find them interesting.
It is strictly a hobby of course, very little "useful" stuff can be done with these boxes beyond the education they can provide.My favorite retro system is OS-9, a real time multitasking operating system that you can fit in your head.
There is an open source version called NitrOS-9 [nitros9.org] which has excellent documentation and most of the code well commented.
It runs on 6809 based computers like the Tandy Color Computer and the Tano Dragon.You can learn a tremendous amount about process scheduling, IPC, memory management, device drivers and low level I/O, etc from playing with this system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468600</id>
	<title>Re:Relax</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1268489820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that German has already gone and adopted an absurdly vague and overbroad law <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/new\_german\_hack.html" title="schneier.com">aimed at "hacking tools"</a> [schneier.com], I wouldn't really describe somebody hypothesizing that other jurisdictions might do so in the future as "paranoid".<br> <br>

Perhaps ultimately more dangerous(because they tend to be subtler) are situations where no law ever bans something, per se; but some quiet mixture of contractual, legal, and technical pressure effectively prevents it anyway. Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial\_Digital\_Interface" title="wikipedia.org">SDI</a> [wikipedia.org] for an instance of that. A digital video transmission standard, available well in advance of HDMI, that was frozen out of the "Consumer" market entirely. It's not like possession was illegal or anything; but most people never even heard of it, nor was it available on any broadly affordable hardware.<br> <br>

In the case of something like debuggers, I'd be very surprised to see any sort of legal ban; but the technological/private sector contractual de facto neutralization is an eminently plausible scenario. Already, in recent versions of Windows, any media application that requires the "Protected Video Path" will throw a fit if there are any unsigned drivers loaded that could compromise that path. An analogous "Protected Execution Path", provided by the OS for programs that didn't want anybody else debugging them or looking at their memory, hardly seems implausible. Not to mention, of course, the increasing percentage of consumer-level computer activity that is occurring on devices were being able to run arbitrary programs isn't even an expectation. Not much debugging going on on Xbox360s, and debuggers don't have to be illegal to not be available through the App Store.<br> <br>

There will always be gaps, of course, for the sufficiently knowledgeable, motivated, and well equipped; but a largely opaque consumer level computing environment seems like an unpleasantly plausible prediction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that German has already gone and adopted an absurdly vague and overbroad law aimed at " hacking tools " [ schneier.com ] , I would n't really describe somebody hypothesizing that other jurisdictions might do so in the future as " paranoid " .
Perhaps ultimately more dangerous ( because they tend to be subtler ) are situations where no law ever bans something , per se ; but some quiet mixture of contractual , legal , and technical pressure effectively prevents it anyway .
Consider SDI [ wikipedia.org ] for an instance of that .
A digital video transmission standard , available well in advance of HDMI , that was frozen out of the " Consumer " market entirely .
It 's not like possession was illegal or anything ; but most people never even heard of it , nor was it available on any broadly affordable hardware .
In the case of something like debuggers , I 'd be very surprised to see any sort of legal ban ; but the technological/private sector contractual de facto neutralization is an eminently plausible scenario .
Already , in recent versions of Windows , any media application that requires the " Protected Video Path " will throw a fit if there are any unsigned drivers loaded that could compromise that path .
An analogous " Protected Execution Path " , provided by the OS for programs that did n't want anybody else debugging them or looking at their memory , hardly seems implausible .
Not to mention , of course , the increasing percentage of consumer-level computer activity that is occurring on devices were being able to run arbitrary programs is n't even an expectation .
Not much debugging going on on Xbox360s , and debuggers do n't have to be illegal to not be available through the App Store .
There will always be gaps , of course , for the sufficiently knowledgeable , motivated , and well equipped ; but a largely opaque consumer level computing environment seems like an unpleasantly plausible prediction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that German has already gone and adopted an absurdly vague and overbroad law aimed at "hacking tools" [schneier.com], I wouldn't really describe somebody hypothesizing that other jurisdictions might do so in the future as "paranoid".
Perhaps ultimately more dangerous(because they tend to be subtler) are situations where no law ever bans something, per se; but some quiet mixture of contractual, legal, and technical pressure effectively prevents it anyway.
Consider SDI [wikipedia.org] for an instance of that.
A digital video transmission standard, available well in advance of HDMI, that was frozen out of the "Consumer" market entirely.
It's not like possession was illegal or anything; but most people never even heard of it, nor was it available on any broadly affordable hardware.
In the case of something like debuggers, I'd be very surprised to see any sort of legal ban; but the technological/private sector contractual de facto neutralization is an eminently plausible scenario.
Already, in recent versions of Windows, any media application that requires the "Protected Video Path" will throw a fit if there are any unsigned drivers loaded that could compromise that path.
An analogous "Protected Execution Path", provided by the OS for programs that didn't want anybody else debugging them or looking at their memory, hardly seems implausible.
Not to mention, of course, the increasing percentage of consumer-level computer activity that is occurring on devices were being able to run arbitrary programs isn't even an expectation.
Not much debugging going on on Xbox360s, and debuggers don't have to be illegal to not be available through the App Store.
There will always be gaps, of course, for the sufficiently knowledgeable, motivated, and well equipped; but a largely opaque consumer level computing environment seems like an unpleasantly plausible prediction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31520450</id>
	<title>Re:Its still possible..</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268910660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I as a 13 yo could learn C64 asm over a weekend, then surely an adult in the future could learn CPUs too.</p><p>Theres nothing wrong with abstraction, we all did it even in assembly via macros, data tables etc....</p><p>Its just natural that today we have 10x more layers, as we have 1000x more cpu speed.</p><p>A mandelbrot in javascript will still be faster than ASM on a c64.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I as a 13 yo could learn C64 asm over a weekend , then surely an adult in the future could learn CPUs too.Theres nothing wrong with abstraction , we all did it even in assembly via macros , data tables etc....Its just natural that today we have 10x more layers , as we have 1000x more cpu speed.A mandelbrot in javascript will still be faster than ASM on a c64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I as a 13 yo could learn C64 asm over a weekend, then surely an adult in the future could learn CPUs too.Theres nothing wrong with abstraction, we all did it even in assembly via macros, data tables etc....Its just natural that today we have 10x more layers, as we have 1000x more cpu speed.A mandelbrot in javascript will still be faster than ASM on a c64.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469036</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268493780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore.</p></div><p>Same here...the Apple IIc was the only machine I ever truly mastered on several levels. I still have my copy of "Beneath Apple DOS" in my library.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore.Same here...the Apple IIc was the only machine I ever truly mastered on several levels .
I still have my copy of " Beneath Apple DOS " in my library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though my experience was on the Apple II not the Commodore.Same here...the Apple IIc was the only machine I ever truly mastered on several levels.
I still have my copy of "Beneath Apple DOS" in my library.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468290</id>
	<title>Re:I miss those good 'ol days</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1268487300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2\%, and still wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//c.</p></div><p>Can you get more done with a program today than you could with the Apple II?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers , classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2 \ % , and still wish I knew a quarter as much ( percentage-wise ) about my current computer as I did about my //c.Can you get more done with a program today than you could with the Apple II ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2\%, and still wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my //c.Can you get more done with a program today than you could with the Apple II?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468070</id>
	<title>If you miss the 8-bit era...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...buy yourself some Atmel microcontrollers (ATMega8 is a good choice). This will be instantly familiar to anyone who programmed assembly language on the C64. There are some differences, the Atmels aren't Von-Neumann architecture but Harvard architecture (separate program and data address space) and the CPU has more registers, but there is excellent hardware documentation, the complete command set and detailed register descriptions in the data sheet. There are lots of interesting application notes (IR decoding, interfacing to PS/2 keyboards, LCD output,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). The Arduino system is based on an Atmel microcontroller, so there is also a big application oriented community in addition to the people coming from the electronics side.</p><p>It's not a toy either. These controllers are everywhere. Have fun and learn a useful skill...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...buy yourself some Atmel microcontrollers ( ATMega8 is a good choice ) .
This will be instantly familiar to anyone who programmed assembly language on the C64 .
There are some differences , the Atmels are n't Von-Neumann architecture but Harvard architecture ( separate program and data address space ) and the CPU has more registers , but there is excellent hardware documentation , the complete command set and detailed register descriptions in the data sheet .
There are lots of interesting application notes ( IR decoding , interfacing to PS/2 keyboards , LCD output , ... ) .
The Arduino system is based on an Atmel microcontroller , so there is also a big application oriented community in addition to the people coming from the electronics side.It 's not a toy either .
These controllers are everywhere .
Have fun and learn a useful skill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...buy yourself some Atmel microcontrollers (ATMega8 is a good choice).
This will be instantly familiar to anyone who programmed assembly language on the C64.
There are some differences, the Atmels aren't Von-Neumann architecture but Harvard architecture (separate program and data address space) and the CPU has more registers, but there is excellent hardware documentation, the complete command set and detailed register descriptions in the data sheet.
There are lots of interesting application notes (IR decoding, interfacing to PS/2 keyboards, LCD output, ...).
The Arduino system is based on an Atmel microcontroller, so there is also a big application oriented community in addition to the people coming from the electronics side.It's not a toy either.
These controllers are everywhere.
Have fun and learn a useful skill...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</id>
	<title>All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1268485320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines.  Now you could spend momths trying to fully understand one video card, which would be replaced by something more complex by the time you finished understanding it.</p><p>And that was a big part of it, the stability of the platforms during that era.  A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind.  Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value. Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform.  Something will be slightly different.  So, understanding being impossible we abstract it all away to the greatest extent possible.</p><p>If you want to reconnect with low level look at AVR microcontrollers.  If you are really frugal you can get going for $20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines .
Now you could spend momths trying to fully understand one video card , which would be replaced by something more complex by the time you finished understanding it.And that was a big part of it , the stability of the platforms during that era .
A C64 was exactly the same as every other one , a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it 's kind .
Later models tended to retain as close to 100 \ % backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value .
Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you wo n't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform .
Something will be slightly different .
So , understanding being impossible we abstract it all away to the greatest extent possible.If you want to reconnect with low level look at AVR microcontrollers .
If you are really frugal you can get going for $ 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines.
Now you could spend momths trying to fully understand one video card, which would be replaced by something more complex by the time you finished understanding it.And that was a big part of it, the stability of the platforms during that era.
A C64 was exactly the same as every other one, a Tandy Coco was identical to the million others of it's kind.
Later models tended to retain as close to 100\% backward compatibility as possible so knowledge and software tools retained value.
Now you buy a lot of PCs with the understanding that a year from now you won't be able to buy more of the exact model even if you stick to Optiplexes and such that promote the relative stability of the platform.
Something will be slightly different.
So, understanding being impossible we abstract it all away to the greatest extent possible.If you want to reconnect with low level look at AVR microcontrollers.
If you are really frugal you can get going for $20.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469938</id>
	<title>Excellent Commodore book</title>
	<author>BuR4N</author>
	<datestamp>1268503920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products, a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be. <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Spectacular-Rise-Fall-Commodore/dp/0973864907" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Spectacular-Rise-Fall-Commodore/dp/0973864907</a> [amazon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products , a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be .
http : //www.amazon.com/Edge-Spectacular-Rise-Fall-Commodore/dp/0973864907 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products, a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be.
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Spectacular-Rise-Fall-Commodore/dp/0973864907 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468366</id>
	<title>Re:Relax</title>
	<author>Kvasio</author>
	<datestamp>1268487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448?</p></div><p>And you have not called your mother for 8 days now, citizen 29821274!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448 ? And you have not called your mother for 8 days now , citizen 29821274 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, why have you switched off your iphone citizen 533448?And you have not called your mother for 8 days now, citizen 29821274!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468156</id>
	<title>Still got my two C=64 machines!</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1268486220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome stuff! Got a 1200 baud Compunet modem too, haha!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome stuff !
Got a 1200 baud Compunet modem too , haha ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome stuff!
Got a 1200 baud Compunet modem too, haha!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470022</id>
	<title>Re:Totally outdated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268505120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
EPIC FAIL at humor.
</p><p>
Don't try again.  I mean it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EPIC FAIL at humor .
Do n't try again .
I mean it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
EPIC FAIL at humor.
Don't try again.
I mean it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470632</id>
	<title>Re:Invert rose-tinted-glasses</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268557920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computer</i></p><p>Strawman.  No one claimed it was necessary, or that being necessary is a prereq for wanting to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in 2010 it 's not necessary to understand the whole computerStrawman .
No one claimed it was necessary , or that being necessary is a prereq for wanting to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in 2010 it's not necessary to understand the whole computerStrawman.
No one claimed it was necessary, or that being necessary is a prereq for wanting to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468478</id>
	<title>Answer:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268488740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use Linux.</p><p>Some areas are lacking, but the existing documentation while now and then incomplete, are a wonderful treasure trove of learning joy.</p><p>In my Linux history I particularly appreciated:</p><p>- the explanation about modelines (howto);<br>- meeting vi again (I had used it decades ago);<br>- the hacking spirit which existed long ago (example: Woz), reborn in Linux developers;<br>- the versatility one has in KDE;<br>- all that I learned about networks, though I'm still very weak about this subject;</p><p>etc. etc.</p><p>Actually, amazingly, someone long ago ported Linux (kinda) to the Commodore 64:</p><p>http://hld.c64.org/poldi/lunix/lunshots.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Linux.Some areas are lacking , but the existing documentation while now and then incomplete , are a wonderful treasure trove of learning joy.In my Linux history I particularly appreciated : - the explanation about modelines ( howto ) ; - meeting vi again ( I had used it decades ago ) ; - the hacking spirit which existed long ago ( example : Woz ) , reborn in Linux developers ; - the versatility one has in KDE ; - all that I learned about networks , though I 'm still very weak about this subject ; etc .
etc.Actually , amazingly , someone long ago ported Linux ( kinda ) to the Commodore 64 : http : //hld.c64.org/poldi/lunix/lunshots.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Linux.Some areas are lacking, but the existing documentation while now and then incomplete, are a wonderful treasure trove of learning joy.In my Linux history I particularly appreciated:- the explanation about modelines (howto);- meeting vi again (I had used it decades ago);- the hacking spirit which existed long ago (example: Woz), reborn in Linux developers;- the versatility one has in KDE;- all that I learned about networks, though I'm still very weak about this subject;etc.
etc.Actually, amazingly, someone long ago ported Linux (kinda) to the Commodore 64:http://hld.c64.org/poldi/lunix/lunshots.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blah blah blah</p><p>Yet another wanker who doesn't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.</p><p>You want to know all the details.  Fine.  Go nuts.  I don't need to re-invent the wheel.  I would rather spend my time solving high level problems.</p><p>The world works better when there are specialists doing things.  It allows us to not have to divide our efforts a million different ways.  I have no idea how a video card works (beyond the basics), and that's a good thing.  Rather than studying video cards (and generalize) I was able to spend my time refining my specialty.  I could be a shitty video card guy with shitty (my discipline) skills, or I could be a non-video-card guy with great (my specialty) skills.  Which one do you think is more useful.  I'll give you a hint: someone else can be really good at video cards.  2 complimentary specialists are always better than two competing generalists.</p><p>Don't think so?  Then tell me: did you build your own house?  Your own car?  No?  Why not?  Because someone else was better at it than you?  How could that possibly be?  BECAUSE THEY ARE A SPECIALIST.</p><p>The world doesn't need 4 billion people with a basic skill set to do everything.  It needs specialists who can excel.  This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism.</p><p>But my words are wasted here.  No doubt modded as "troll" for pointing out the obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blah blah blahYet another wanker who does n't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.You want to know all the details .
Fine. Go nuts .
I do n't need to re-invent the wheel .
I would rather spend my time solving high level problems.The world works better when there are specialists doing things .
It allows us to not have to divide our efforts a million different ways .
I have no idea how a video card works ( beyond the basics ) , and that 's a good thing .
Rather than studying video cards ( and generalize ) I was able to spend my time refining my specialty .
I could be a shitty video card guy with shitty ( my discipline ) skills , or I could be a non-video-card guy with great ( my specialty ) skills .
Which one do you think is more useful .
I 'll give you a hint : someone else can be really good at video cards .
2 complimentary specialists are always better than two competing generalists.Do n't think so ?
Then tell me : did you build your own house ?
Your own car ?
No ? Why not ?
Because someone else was better at it than you ?
How could that possibly be ?
BECAUSE THEY ARE A SPECIALIST.The world does n't need 4 billion people with a basic skill set to do everything .
It needs specialists who can excel .
This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism.But my words are wasted here .
No doubt modded as " troll " for pointing out the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blah blah blahYet another wanker who doesn't realize that encapsulation and abstraction are IMPROVEMENTS.You want to know all the details.
Fine.  Go nuts.
I don't need to re-invent the wheel.
I would rather spend my time solving high level problems.The world works better when there are specialists doing things.
It allows us to not have to divide our efforts a million different ways.
I have no idea how a video card works (beyond the basics), and that's a good thing.
Rather than studying video cards (and generalize) I was able to spend my time refining my specialty.
I could be a shitty video card guy with shitty (my discipline) skills, or I could be a non-video-card guy with great (my specialty) skills.
Which one do you think is more useful.
I'll give you a hint: someone else can be really good at video cards.
2 complimentary specialists are always better than two competing generalists.Don't think so?
Then tell me: did you build your own house?
Your own car?
No?  Why not?
Because someone else was better at it than you?
How could that possibly be?
BECAUSE THEY ARE A SPECIALIST.The world doesn't need 4 billion people with a basic skill set to do everything.
It needs specialists who can excel.
This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism.But my words are wasted here.
No doubt modded as "troll" for pointing out the obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468920</id>
	<title>Re:All of the 8 and 16bit machines were knowable</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1268492640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines.</p></div><p>Well, a lot of the segment-based memory management features introduced in the 80286 seemed to be so complex and hard to understand that nobody really used them to the extent Intel envisioned. Once the much simpler page-based virtual memory was added to the 32-bit 80386, people tried to forget that those 286 features ever existed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines.Well , a lot of the segment-based memory management features introduced in the 80286 seemed to be so complex and hard to understand that nobody really used them to the extent Intel envisioned .
Once the much simpler page-based virtual memory was added to the 32-bit 80386 , people tried to forget that those 286 features ever existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was possible to fully understand all of the old 8 and 16 but machines.Well, a lot of the segment-based memory management features introduced in the 80286 seemed to be so complex and hard to understand that nobody really used them to the extent Intel envisioned.
Once the much simpler page-based virtual memory was added to the 32-bit 80386, people tried to forget that those 286 features ever existed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31492980</id>
	<title>mytiffanycvs.com</title>
	<author>BillMike</author>
	<datestamp>1268734620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products, a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be.
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany NeckLaces</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Rings</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Gift</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Wholesale tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Cheap tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Discount tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow"> </a> [mytiffanycvs.com]<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products , a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be .
Tiffany NeckLaces [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Tiffany Rings [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Tiffany Gift [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Wholesale tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Cheap tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Discount tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] [ mytiffanycvs.com ] http : //www.mytiffanycvs.com/ [ mytiffanycvs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a must read for anyone interested in Commodore and its products, a great historical account how among other things the C64 came to be.
Tiffany NeckLaces [mytiffanycvs.com]
Tiffany Rings [mytiffanycvs.com]
Tiffany Gift [mytiffanycvs.com]
Wholesale tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
Cheap tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
Discount tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
  [mytiffanycvs.com]http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/ [mytiffanycvs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468258</id>
	<title>They did less.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1268487060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sometimes wax for the simplicity and deep understanding of the machines that I grew up with, but, the fact is, today's PCs just do more.  They aren't just faster and more memory, they are also that much more complex.  Sure, the instruction set of AMD64 is not that much more than the instruction set of an older machine, but that's only because its suffficiently well organized between opcodes and address modes that you can learn it.  But after that, there's the whole peripheral story.  How many people -really- want to know the ins and outs of how a PC Express bus works.  Or USB.  Forget video cards - what about sound cards.  Even with data sheets programming a driver is a tremendous challenge.</p><p>And that's just at a hardware level.  I mean, seriously, it wasn't that uncommon for people to write line editor or field editors for 8 bit machines or even for DOS text mode, but that's because everything was fixed width and height and you controlled everything, even the cursor.  Nowadays, I doubt there's but a handful of genuine home grown edit controls for GUI environments - everyone just uses the widget that comes with it, and for good reason - they are mind boggingly complex for such a seemingly simple thing.  You have to know about the current font, the events with the mouse, keyboard...you could easily blow a 1000 lines of code on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sometimes wax for the simplicity and deep understanding of the machines that I grew up with , but , the fact is , today 's PCs just do more .
They are n't just faster and more memory , they are also that much more complex .
Sure , the instruction set of AMD64 is not that much more than the instruction set of an older machine , but that 's only because its suffficiently well organized between opcodes and address modes that you can learn it .
But after that , there 's the whole peripheral story .
How many people -really- want to know the ins and outs of how a PC Express bus works .
Or USB .
Forget video cards - what about sound cards .
Even with data sheets programming a driver is a tremendous challenge.And that 's just at a hardware level .
I mean , seriously , it was n't that uncommon for people to write line editor or field editors for 8 bit machines or even for DOS text mode , but that 's because everything was fixed width and height and you controlled everything , even the cursor .
Nowadays , I doubt there 's but a handful of genuine home grown edit controls for GUI environments - everyone just uses the widget that comes with it , and for good reason - they are mind boggingly complex for such a seemingly simple thing .
You have to know about the current font , the events with the mouse , keyboard...you could easily blow a 1000 lines of code on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sometimes wax for the simplicity and deep understanding of the machines that I grew up with, but, the fact is, today's PCs just do more.
They aren't just faster and more memory, they are also that much more complex.
Sure, the instruction set of AMD64 is not that much more than the instruction set of an older machine, but that's only because its suffficiently well organized between opcodes and address modes that you can learn it.
But after that, there's the whole peripheral story.
How many people -really- want to know the ins and outs of how a PC Express bus works.
Or USB.
Forget video cards - what about sound cards.
Even with data sheets programming a driver is a tremendous challenge.And that's just at a hardware level.
I mean, seriously, it wasn't that uncommon for people to write line editor or field editors for 8 bit machines or even for DOS text mode, but that's because everything was fixed width and height and you controlled everything, even the cursor.
Nowadays, I doubt there's but a handful of genuine home grown edit controls for GUI environments - everyone just uses the widget that comes with it, and for good reason - they are mind boggingly complex for such a seemingly simple thing.
You have to know about the current font, the events with the mouse, keyboard...you could easily blow a 1000 lines of code on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469642</id>
	<title>Just say robotics.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking pretty much the same. I wonder if robotics in twenty years will have the same feeling of "loss of control"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking pretty much the same .
I wonder if robotics in twenty years will have the same feeling of " loss of control " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking pretty much the same.
I wonder if robotics in twenty years will have the same feeling of "loss of control"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468068</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31475306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31485160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31474152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31488494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31480930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31476526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31520450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31486888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2316217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31474152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31488494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31470022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31520450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31485160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31475306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31480930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31476526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31473936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31486888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31467930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31472704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31471998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2316217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31468068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2316217.31469642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
