<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_2216258</id>
	<title>Simpler "Hello World" Demonstrated In C</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268748180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Wondering where all that bloat comes from, causing even the classic '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello\_world\_program">Hello world</a>' to weigh in at 11 KB? An MIT programmer decided to make a <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/libc-free-world/">Linux C program so simple</a>, she could explain every byte of the assembly. She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it. The blog shows how to compile a much simpler 'Hello world,' <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html">using no libraries at all</a>. This takes me back to the days of programming bare-metal on DOS!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Wondering where all that bloat comes from , causing even the classic 'Hello world ' to weigh in at 11 KB ?
An MIT programmer decided to make a Linux C program so simple , she could explain every byte of the assembly .
She found that gcc was including libc even when you do n't ask for it .
The blog shows how to compile a much simpler 'Hello world, ' using no libraries at all .
This takes me back to the days of programming bare-metal on DOS !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Wondering where all that bloat comes from, causing even the classic 'Hello world' to weigh in at 11 KB?
An MIT programmer decided to make a Linux C program so simple, she could explain every byte of the assembly.
She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.
The blog shows how to compile a much simpler 'Hello world,' using no libraries at all.
This takes me back to the days of programming bare-metal on DOS!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1268764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's something else C programmers should know...use a real language!  Yes, programming fundamentals are extremely important.  Yes, people should learn C or C++ first.  Yes, old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread.  But seriously, anyone "still using C" like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a <b>little</b> quicker and more flexible.  I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out.  Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet.  I hear they're shipping with 4+ GB of ram and multicore processors these days.  I don't care if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10, it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap.  The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something else C programmers should know...use a real language !
Yes , programming fundamentals are extremely important .
Yes , people should learn C or C + + first .
Yes , old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread .
But seriously , anyone " still using C " like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a little quicker and more flexible .
I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out .
Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet .
I hear they 're shipping with 4 + GB of ram and multicore processors these days .
I do n't care if the .NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10 , it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap .
The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something else C programmers should know...use a real language!
Yes, programming fundamentals are extremely important.
Yes, people should learn C or C++ first.
Yes, old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread.
But seriously, anyone "still using C" like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a little quicker and more flexible.
I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out.
Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet.
I hear they're shipping with 4+ GB of ram and multicore processors these days.
I don't care if the .NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10, it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap.
The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512094</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!! - Easy : 20-21 bytes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can shave off 2 or 3 bytes by using "int 20" instead of "mov ah, 4C / int 21"<br>You can save a few more bytes by using the function 9 of int 21 routine too since it has a simpler calling convention.<br>From memory (it's been a while) I think it's only ah=9, and dx=offset. The downside is you have to terminate the string with a '$' sign.<br>So the correct shortest Hello World! is:<br>c:\ xxx&gt;debug<br>-a<br>mov ah, 9<br>mov dx, 109<br>int 21<br>int 20<br>-f 109 "Hello World!$"<br>-r cx<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:0015<br>-n c:\ xxx\ hello.com<br>-w<br>-q</p><p>That should shave off a nice 8 bytes which you can use elsewhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p<br>You can even shave off one more byte if you use the fact that on the stack is the return address 0000, which is the start of some program data block which conveniently starts with "int 20", hence your program can use the 1 byte "ret" instead of the 2-byte "int 20" - but that's kinda hacky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you can shave off 2 or 3 bytes by using " int 20 " instead of " mov ah , 4C / int 21 " You can save a few more bytes by using the function 9 of int 21 routine too since it has a simpler calling convention.From memory ( it 's been a while ) I think it 's only ah = 9 , and dx = offset .
The downside is you have to terminate the string with a ' $ ' sign.So the correct shortest Hello World !
is : c : \ xxx &gt; debug-amov ah , 9mov dx , 109int 21int 20-f 109 " Hello World ! $ " -r cx : 0015-n c : \ xxx \ hello.com-w-qThat should shave off a nice 8 bytes which you can use elsewhere : pYou can even shave off one more byte if you use the fact that on the stack is the return address 0000 , which is the start of some program data block which conveniently starts with " int 20 " , hence your program can use the 1 byte " ret " instead of the 2-byte " int 20 " - but that 's kinda hacky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can shave off 2 or 3 bytes by using "int 20" instead of "mov ah, 4C / int 21"You can save a few more bytes by using the function 9 of int 21 routine too since it has a simpler calling convention.From memory (it's been a while) I think it's only ah=9, and dx=offset.
The downside is you have to terminate the string with a '$' sign.So the correct shortest Hello World!
is:c:\ xxx&gt;debug-amov ah, 9mov dx, 109int 21int 20-f 109 "Hello World!$"-r cx :0015-n c:\ xxx\ hello.com-w-qThat should shave off a nice 8 bytes which you can use elsewhere :pYou can even shave off one more byte if you use the fact that on the stack is the return address 0000, which is the start of some program data block which conveniently starts with "int 20", hence your program can use the 1 byte "ret" instead of the 2-byte "int 20" - but that's kinda hacky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504878</id>
	<title>Tiny others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also tiny PE: http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/<br>and tiny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=10847</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also tiny PE : http : //www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/and tiny .COM : http : //board.flatassembler.net/topic.php ? t = 10847</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also tiny PE: http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/and tiny .COM: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=10847</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506326</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268825040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a suggestion:  If you write your JVM in Visual Basic instead of C#, it'll be portable, since most old microcomputers included BASIC in ROM.  And, of course,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET already brings Visual Basic.NET!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a suggestion : If you write your JVM in Visual Basic instead of C # , it 'll be portable , since most old microcomputers included BASIC in ROM .
And , of course , .NET already brings Visual Basic.NET !
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a suggestion:  If you write your JVM in Visual Basic instead of C#, it'll be portable, since most old microcomputers included BASIC in ROM.
And, of course, .NET already brings Visual Basic.NET!
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508346</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@Echo Hello World</p><p>C:\&gt;hello<br>Hello World!</p><p>C:\&gt;dir hello.bat<br>
&nbsp; Volume in drive C has no label.<br>
&nbsp; Volume Serial Number is [xxxxxxxxxxxx]</p><p>
&nbsp; Directory of C:\</p><p>17/03/2010  02:36                20 hello.bat<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1 File(s)             20 bytes</p><p>To be fair, this is cheating. However, part of good programming is recognising when it's OK to cheat.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ Echo Hello WorldC : \ &gt; helloHello World ! C : \ &gt; dir hello.bat   Volume in drive C has no label .
  Volume Serial Number is [ xxxxxxxxxxxx ]   Directory of C : \ 17/03/2010 02 : 36 20 hello.bat                               1 File ( s ) 20 bytesTo be fair , this is cheating .
However , part of good programming is recognising when it 's OK to cheat .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@Echo Hello WorldC:\&gt;helloHello World!C:\&gt;dir hello.bat
  Volume in drive C has no label.
  Volume Serial Number is [xxxxxxxxxxxx]
  Directory of C:\17/03/2010  02:36                20 hello.bat
                              1 File(s)             20 bytesTo be fair, this is cheating.
However, part of good programming is recognising when it's OK to cheat.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504556</id>
	<title>Still written (mostly) in C. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At the end, the code was assembler"</p><p>But, the key point is that the user didn't generate that assembly. The user wrote a C program (granted, the program doesn't actually do any output - it just stores a string in memory, then exits). The user called the compiler to compile the program. The user then *disassembled* the object code which was created by *the compiler*. So, the assembly you see was generated (indirectly, via the objdump command), by the C compiler.</p><p>Exception: the user did create a small assembly file with the place-holder \_start function. Perhaps, this example would have benefitted by the user defining the \_start() function in C also, and using the compiler to compile that - not sure if that actually would have worked or not, but would have been interesting if she had tried.</p><p>One other point I'd like to make - ultimately, every C program has to have some assembly *somewhere*. When you call the printf(), printf itself either must use some assembly to interact with the operating system (in order to cause output to be sent to stdout), or printf *might* punt that off to another function, which then has some assembly inside it. The only reason you can do *any* input or output in C (or any other language for that matter) is that, at some point, somewhere, either in the compiler itself, or in a standard library, someone has provided the necessary assembly code for you.</p><p>In the case of C, the language designers decided to make the C-language pure 'logic', without any notion of input or output statements, or operating system interactioni, and do all input/output/system calls via library functions (whether you use the standard library, or a 'third-party' library [ I use the term third-party loosely here, because the 'third-party' lib might actually be provided by your compiler vendor, but it's just not the standard library]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At the end , the code was assembler " But , the key point is that the user did n't generate that assembly .
The user wrote a C program ( granted , the program does n't actually do any output - it just stores a string in memory , then exits ) .
The user called the compiler to compile the program .
The user then * disassembled * the object code which was created by * the compiler * .
So , the assembly you see was generated ( indirectly , via the objdump command ) , by the C compiler.Exception : the user did create a small assembly file with the place-holder \ _start function .
Perhaps , this example would have benefitted by the user defining the \ _start ( ) function in C also , and using the compiler to compile that - not sure if that actually would have worked or not , but would have been interesting if she had tried.One other point I 'd like to make - ultimately , every C program has to have some assembly * somewhere * .
When you call the printf ( ) , printf itself either must use some assembly to interact with the operating system ( in order to cause output to be sent to stdout ) , or printf * might * punt that off to another function , which then has some assembly inside it .
The only reason you can do * any * input or output in C ( or any other language for that matter ) is that , at some point , somewhere , either in the compiler itself , or in a standard library , someone has provided the necessary assembly code for you.In the case of C , the language designers decided to make the C-language pure 'logic ' , without any notion of input or output statements , or operating system interactioni , and do all input/output/system calls via library functions ( whether you use the standard library , or a 'third-party ' library [ I use the term third-party loosely here , because the 'third-party ' lib might actually be provided by your compiler vendor , but it 's just not the standard library ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At the end, the code was assembler"But, the key point is that the user didn't generate that assembly.
The user wrote a C program (granted, the program doesn't actually do any output - it just stores a string in memory, then exits).
The user called the compiler to compile the program.
The user then *disassembled* the object code which was created by *the compiler*.
So, the assembly you see was generated (indirectly, via the objdump command), by the C compiler.Exception: the user did create a small assembly file with the place-holder \_start function.
Perhaps, this example would have benefitted by the user defining the \_start() function in C also, and using the compiler to compile that - not sure if that actually would have worked or not, but would have been interesting if she had tried.One other point I'd like to make - ultimately, every C program has to have some assembly *somewhere*.
When you call the printf(), printf itself either must use some assembly to interact with the operating system (in order to cause output to be sent to stdout), or printf *might* punt that off to another function, which then has some assembly inside it.
The only reason you can do *any* input or output in C (or any other language for that matter) is that, at some point, somewhere, either in the compiler itself, or in a standard library, someone has provided the necessary assembly code for you.In the case of C, the language designers decided to make the C-language pure 'logic', without any notion of input or output statements, or operating system interactioni, and do all input/output/system calls via library functions (whether you use the standard library, or a 'third-party' library [ I use the term third-party loosely here, because the 'third-party' lib might actually be provided by your compiler vendor, but it's just not the standard library]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505002</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268762040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's part of the REASON that programs have become "bloated." We have plenty of resources these days. RAM and HDD space is cheap. So, it doesn't make sense to spend time trying to wring every byte out of a program. If having a bit of bloat makes the program more portable, or easier to debug, or more resilient to attack or whatever it is probably worth while.</p><p>I'd much rather have a program that was 1MB larger than it needs to be, but easy for the devs to maintain and nice and compatible than one that is as small as possible but is a complete mess at the code level. As a practical matter program data, like graphics, sounds, media, etc, is way, WAY bigger than the program itself. For example Mass Effect 2 has about 25.6MB of code between its binary and various DLLs. If you count system DDLs it uses, it is maybe up to 50MB. It's total size? 12.1GB. All the rest is data of various kinds. They could halve the size of the code and still not make even a tiny dent in disk or memory usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's part of the REASON that programs have become " bloated .
" We have plenty of resources these days .
RAM and HDD space is cheap .
So , it does n't make sense to spend time trying to wring every byte out of a program .
If having a bit of bloat makes the program more portable , or easier to debug , or more resilient to attack or whatever it is probably worth while.I 'd much rather have a program that was 1MB larger than it needs to be , but easy for the devs to maintain and nice and compatible than one that is as small as possible but is a complete mess at the code level .
As a practical matter program data , like graphics , sounds , media , etc , is way , WAY bigger than the program itself .
For example Mass Effect 2 has about 25.6MB of code between its binary and various DLLs .
If you count system DDLs it uses , it is maybe up to 50MB .
It 's total size ?
12.1GB. All the rest is data of various kinds .
They could halve the size of the code and still not make even a tiny dent in disk or memory usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's part of the REASON that programs have become "bloated.
" We have plenty of resources these days.
RAM and HDD space is cheap.
So, it doesn't make sense to spend time trying to wring every byte out of a program.
If having a bit of bloat makes the program more portable, or easier to debug, or more resilient to attack or whatever it is probably worth while.I'd much rather have a program that was 1MB larger than it needs to be, but easy for the devs to maintain and nice and compatible than one that is as small as possible but is a complete mess at the code level.
As a practical matter program data, like graphics, sounds, media, etc, is way, WAY bigger than the program itself.
For example Mass Effect 2 has about 25.6MB of code between its binary and various DLLs.
If you count system DDLs it uses, it is maybe up to 50MB.
It's total size?
12.1GB. All the rest is data of various kinds.
They could halve the size of the code and still not make even a tiny dent in disk or memory usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504388</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268754900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because any real application is going to need libc.</p></div><p>
Real programs do not need the entire libc imported, either.<br>
<br>
It used to be easy to import minimal sets of dependencies, and in fact it used to be default behavior. Libraries were designed in a modular fashion so that a program that only needed the module that contained getc() didnt also pull in the module with atoi(). These days, pulling in any module from a library likely brings in every module, and its a sad sad thing that compilers, linkers, and libraries have strayed so so far from the minimalist-by-default days.<br>
<br>
The modern ways are bloat. Defaulting to maximal rather than minimal. I don't care that the target system has 16 gigs of ram, and its programmers who shrug it off because they have so much ram (such as you) that are the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because any real application is going to need libc .
Real programs do not need the entire libc imported , either .
It used to be easy to import minimal sets of dependencies , and in fact it used to be default behavior .
Libraries were designed in a modular fashion so that a program that only needed the module that contained getc ( ) didnt also pull in the module with atoi ( ) .
These days , pulling in any module from a library likely brings in every module , and its a sad sad thing that compilers , linkers , and libraries have strayed so so far from the minimalist-by-default days .
The modern ways are bloat .
Defaulting to maximal rather than minimal .
I do n't care that the target system has 16 gigs of ram , and its programmers who shrug it off because they have so much ram ( such as you ) that are the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because any real application is going to need libc.
Real programs do not need the entire libc imported, either.
It used to be easy to import minimal sets of dependencies, and in fact it used to be default behavior.
Libraries were designed in a modular fashion so that a program that only needed the module that contained getc() didnt also pull in the module with atoi().
These days, pulling in any module from a library likely brings in every module, and its a sad sad thing that compilers, linkers, and libraries have strayed so so far from the minimalist-by-default days.
The modern ways are bloat.
Defaulting to maximal rather than minimal.
I don't care that the target system has 16 gigs of ram, and its programmers who shrug it off because they have so much ram (such as you) that are the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504318</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1268754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>she's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM.</i> <p>
Just because her machine has that much RAM available doesn't mean the program has to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>she 's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM .
Just because her machine has that much RAM available does n't mean the program has to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>she's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM.
Just because her machine has that much RAM available doesn't mean the program has to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504110</id>
	<title>BASICally she did this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start with:

10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 END

The Went to:
10 PRI "Hello World"

Then finally came down to:

10?"Hello World"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start with : 10 PRINT " Hello World " 20 END The Went to : 10 PRI " Hello World " Then finally came down to : 10 ?
" Hello World "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start with:

10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 END

The Went to:
10 PRI "Hello World"

Then finally came down to:

10?
"Hello World"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504988</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you hate women so much? Is it out of self loathing that you had to become one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you hate women so much ?
Is it out of self loathing that you had to become one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you hate women so much?
Is it out of self loathing that you had to become one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510396</id>
	<title>Embedded vs non-embedded</title>
	<author>rclandrum</author>
	<datestamp>1268847900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fundamental difference between embedded software development and developing applications for PCs is this: embedded software can have no bugs.  Unless the device has built-in flash or other mechanisms for upgrading, you absolutely, positively must have the software perfect before the device ships, cuz there ain't gonna be a version 2.0.  In embedded software, it is the code that brings the hardware to life, and any bug effectively kills it.  When a 3-year accidentally presses the "talk" and "burp" buttons at the same time on her Suzy Flatulence doll and it bursts into flames, not only are you totally fired for not properly safety-testing your code, but the company that you used to work for is totally hosed, along with all your coworkers - and of course all the crispy kids that owned the flaming Suzy dolls.</p><p>Or ask any owner of a car that has a drive-by-wire accelerator whether they think a bug or two is OK.</p><p>Sure, PC application programmers can worry about bugs, but they know that deep down, if there's something wrong with the hyperlink resolution code in their browser app, that they will probably get a chance to fix it.  Not so with their embedded developer brothers - when one of *their* products ship, it's usually a scrotum-tightening, make-or-break deal.</p><p>And that's why I'll hire an embedded systems programmer over a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET GUI weenie any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental difference between embedded software development and developing applications for PCs is this : embedded software can have no bugs .
Unless the device has built-in flash or other mechanisms for upgrading , you absolutely , positively must have the software perfect before the device ships , cuz there ai n't gon na be a version 2.0 .
In embedded software , it is the code that brings the hardware to life , and any bug effectively kills it .
When a 3-year accidentally presses the " talk " and " burp " buttons at the same time on her Suzy Flatulence doll and it bursts into flames , not only are you totally fired for not properly safety-testing your code , but the company that you used to work for is totally hosed , along with all your coworkers - and of course all the crispy kids that owned the flaming Suzy dolls.Or ask any owner of a car that has a drive-by-wire accelerator whether they think a bug or two is OK.Sure , PC application programmers can worry about bugs , but they know that deep down , if there 's something wrong with the hyperlink resolution code in their browser app , that they will probably get a chance to fix it .
Not so with their embedded developer brothers - when one of * their * products ship , it 's usually a scrotum-tightening , make-or-break deal.And that 's why I 'll hire an embedded systems programmer over a .NET GUI weenie any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental difference between embedded software development and developing applications for PCs is this: embedded software can have no bugs.
Unless the device has built-in flash or other mechanisms for upgrading, you absolutely, positively must have the software perfect before the device ships, cuz there ain't gonna be a version 2.0.
In embedded software, it is the code that brings the hardware to life, and any bug effectively kills it.
When a 3-year accidentally presses the "talk" and "burp" buttons at the same time on her Suzy Flatulence doll and it bursts into flames, not only are you totally fired for not properly safety-testing your code, but the company that you used to work for is totally hosed, along with all your coworkers - and of course all the crispy kids that owned the flaming Suzy dolls.Or ask any owner of a car that has a drive-by-wire accelerator whether they think a bug or two is OK.Sure, PC application programmers can worry about bugs, but they know that deep down, if there's something wrong with the hyperlink resolution code in their browser app, that they will probably get a chance to fix it.
Not so with their embedded developer brothers - when one of *their* products ship, it's usually a scrotum-tightening, make-or-break deal.And that's why I'll hire an embedded systems programmer over a .NET GUI weenie any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508490</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>bkaul01</author>
	<datestamp>1268840760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with the "xxx" directory?  Programming = porn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the " xxx " directory ?
Programming = porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the "xxx" directory?
Programming = porn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510630</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1268848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>03/18/2011 11:29 AM 29 HELLO.COM</p></div></blockquote><p>Nice to see people still use DEBUG.EXE in the future!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>03/18/2011 11 : 29 AM 29 HELLO.COMNice to see people still use DEBUG.EXE in the future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>03/18/2011 11:29 AM 29 HELLO.COMNice to see people still use DEBUG.EXE in the future!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505878</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1268820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Millions of times over the years by millions of people.</p><p>The 57 bytes looks impressive at first, but seriously? Is that using 57 bytes of their own rather than <a href="http://www.phrack.com/issues.html?issue=66&amp;id=14" title="phrack.com">borrowing them</a> [phrack.com] from somewhere else? Come back next year and have another go...</p><p>(actually found that while googling for the last slashdot story about overlapping ELF headers to get a smaller hello world)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions of times over the years by millions of people.The 57 bytes looks impressive at first , but seriously ?
Is that using 57 bytes of their own rather than borrowing them [ phrack.com ] from somewhere else ?
Come back next year and have another go... ( actually found that while googling for the last slashdot story about overlapping ELF headers to get a smaller hello world )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions of times over the years by millions of people.The 57 bytes looks impressive at first, but seriously?
Is that using 57 bytes of their own rather than borrowing them [phrack.com] from somewhere else?
Come back next year and have another go...(actually found that while googling for the last slashdot story about overlapping ELF headers to get a smaller hello world)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504642</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268757480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the microprocessors in the world today have less than a few 10's of kilobytes of RAM. They tend to do useful things most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the microprocessors in the world today have less than a few 10 's of kilobytes of RAM .
They tend to do useful things most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the microprocessors in the world today have less than a few 10's of kilobytes of RAM.
They tend to do useful things most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505100</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you kiss your mom with that mouth?  You know you've been on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/ too much when you forget how to act in the real world (or at least on the front side of the internet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you kiss your mom with that mouth ?
You know you 've been on /b/ too much when you forget how to act in the real world ( or at least on the front side of the internet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you kiss your mom with that mouth?
You know you've been on /b/ too much when you forget how to act in the real world (or at least on the front side of the internet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523756</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268931780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>c:\ xxx&gt;dir hello.com<br>03/18/2011 11:29 AM 29 HELLO.COM</p></div><p>From the future no less!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>c : \ xxx &gt; dir hello.com03/18/2011 11 : 29 AM 29 HELLO.COMFrom the future no less !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c:\ xxx&gt;dir hello.com03/18/2011 11:29 AM 29 HELLO.COMFrom the future no less!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505672</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>aifnord</author>
	<datestamp>1268817240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Linux, anything a user process wants to do to interact with the outside world is done through syscalls. I don't remember the exact details and I'm too lazy to look it up, but in the case of writing data to stdout, you basically just put the number of the syscall write(), the file descriptor number, a pointer to the data and the number of bytes in various registers (possible eax, ebx, ecx and edx?) and then do an int 0x80 to make the kernel execute it all for you.

Basically, the syscall has the exact same interface as write(2).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Linux , anything a user process wants to do to interact with the outside world is done through syscalls .
I do n't remember the exact details and I 'm too lazy to look it up , but in the case of writing data to stdout , you basically just put the number of the syscall write ( ) , the file descriptor number , a pointer to the data and the number of bytes in various registers ( possible eax , ebx , ecx and edx ?
) and then do an int 0x80 to make the kernel execute it all for you .
Basically , the syscall has the exact same interface as write ( 2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Linux, anything a user process wants to do to interact with the outside world is done through syscalls.
I don't remember the exact details and I'm too lazy to look it up, but in the case of writing data to stdout, you basically just put the number of the syscall write(), the file descriptor number, a pointer to the data and the number of bytes in various registers (possible eax, ebx, ecx and edx?
) and then do an int 0x80 to make the kernel execute it all for you.
Basically, the syscall has the exact same interface as write(2).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504498</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You so obviously didn't get any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You so obviously did n't get any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You so obviously didn't get any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507044</id>
	<title>Stop the Hate, be constructive.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the time of writing this comment, I'm disgusted by the amount of flames rated +5. "Haters gotta hate", sure, but haters gotta be modded-up? What ever happened to constructive criticism? Of building some better explanation from a weak article?<br>I come to Slashdot for the interesting and insightful discussions. Criticizing without anything constructive serves only in inflating your own ego.</p><p>I believe this article is interesting. Though it does cover part of the same subject as the <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html" title="muppetlabs.com" rel="nofollow">Whirlwind Tutorial</a> [muppetlabs.com], it doesn't duplicate it. It provides insight in the backstage of C programs which many programmers aren't aware of. I certainly wasn't aware of it before reading the whirlwind tutorial a few years ago, and there's always a new generation that can learn from it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time of writing this comment , I 'm disgusted by the amount of flames rated + 5 .
" Haters got ta hate " , sure , but haters got ta be modded-up ?
What ever happened to constructive criticism ?
Of building some better explanation from a weak article ? I come to Slashdot for the interesting and insightful discussions .
Criticizing without anything constructive serves only in inflating your own ego.I believe this article is interesting .
Though it does cover part of the same subject as the Whirlwind Tutorial [ muppetlabs.com ] , it does n't duplicate it .
It provides insight in the backstage of C programs which many programmers are n't aware of .
I certainly was n't aware of it before reading the whirlwind tutorial a few years ago , and there 's always a new generation that can learn from it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time of writing this comment, I'm disgusted by the amount of flames rated +5.
"Haters gotta hate", sure, but haters gotta be modded-up?
What ever happened to constructive criticism?
Of building some better explanation from a weak article?I come to Slashdot for the interesting and insightful discussions.
Criticizing without anything constructive serves only in inflating your own ego.I believe this article is interesting.
Though it does cover part of the same subject as the Whirlwind Tutorial [muppetlabs.com], it doesn't duplicate it.
It provides insight in the backstage of C programs which many programmers aren't aware of.
I certainly wasn't aware of it before reading the whirlwind tutorial a few years ago, and there's always a new generation that can learn from it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504802</id>
	<title>Hello Real World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice, though HOTBASIC which is as powerful in scope as C and much easier in syntax does it in:</p><p>4kb for WINDOWS.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>It strips everything it doesn't use. Creates the smallest, fastest exe's out there.</p><p>Hello World !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , though HOTBASIC which is as powerful in scope as C and much easier in syntax does it in : 4kb for WINDOWS .
: DIt strips everything it does n't use .
Creates the smallest , fastest exe 's out there.Hello World !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, though HOTBASIC which is as powerful in scope as C and much easier in syntax does it in:4kb for WINDOWS.
:DIt strips everything it doesn't use.
Creates the smallest, fastest exe's out there.Hello World !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158</id>
	<title>IEFBR14</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1268752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainframers have been using this most simple of all utilities for decades - literally. The Wikipedia entry on it has a good write-up about this (literal) do-nothing program. It's whole purpose is to provide a mechanisim to to exploit the various functions contained in JCL to create, delete, and otherwise manipulate datasets on mainframes.</p><p>The wikipedia entry is here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainframers have been using this most simple of all utilities for decades - literally .
The Wikipedia entry on it has a good write-up about this ( literal ) do-nothing program .
It 's whole purpose is to provide a mechanisim to to exploit the various functions contained in JCL to create , delete , and otherwise manipulate datasets on mainframes.The wikipedia entry is here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainframers have been using this most simple of all utilities for decades - literally.
The Wikipedia entry on it has a good write-up about this (literal) do-nothing program.
It's whole purpose is to provide a mechanisim to to exploit the various functions contained in JCL to create, delete, and otherwise manipulate datasets on mainframes.The wikipedia entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31563840</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269194880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Yeah, but she hates men. That's hot.</p><p>You may think so, but I think there is a double standard at work here.</p><p>If a man in a similar position at MIT posted a pic of himself with a laptop displaying the message "I HATE WOMEN," he'd be crucified for it, and rightly so. Nobody would think it was "cute" or "hot."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Yeah , but she hates men .
That 's hot.You may think so , but I think there is a double standard at work here.If a man in a similar position at MIT posted a pic of himself with a laptop displaying the message " I HATE WOMEN , " he 'd be crucified for it , and rightly so .
Nobody would think it was " cute " or " hot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Yeah, but she hates men.
That's hot.You may think so, but I think there is a double standard at work here.If a man in a similar position at MIT posted a pic of himself with a laptop displaying the message "I HATE WOMEN," he'd be crucified for it, and rightly so.
Nobody would think it was "cute" or "hot.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31519112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507936</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268838420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without any context I am left to blindly type what you posted... It seemed to work until I got to this line...</p><p>-r cx<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:001D<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ^ Error</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without any context I am left to blindly type what you posted... It seemed to work until I got to this line...-r cx : 001D             ^ Error</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without any context I am left to blindly type what you posted... It seemed to work until I got to this line...-r cx :001D
            ^ Error</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505802</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>clemdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1268818920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean the fact, that 'SHE' appears in the summary is not enough? Of course, that would require reading the summary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the fact , that 'SHE ' appears in the summary is not enough ?
Of course , that would require reading the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the fact, that 'SHE' appears in the summary is not enough?
Of course, that would require reading the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504752</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>malloc</author>
	<datestamp>1268758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC the video segment was laid out with one byte for the colour code, one byte for the character to display; so addr should either be short * or needs to increment 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC the video segment was laid out with one byte for the colour code , one byte for the character to display ; so addr should either be short * or needs to increment 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC the video segment was laid out with one byte for the colour code, one byte for the character to display; so addr should either be short * or needs to increment 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504168</id>
	<title>Brian is a funny name for a girl...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really though, I've never understood the need to use gender terms when its irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really though , I 've never understood the need to use gender terms when its irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really though, I've never understood the need to use gender terms when its irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506774</id>
	<title>nope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268830500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For F*ck's sake, you idiot. DOS was never "bare-metal".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For F * ck 's sake , you idiot .
DOS was never " bare-metal " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For F*ck's sake, you idiot.
DOS was never "bare-metal".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518748</id>
	<title>Amazing news?</title>
	<author>codewyrds</author>
	<datestamp>1268843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=minimize+exe+size" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=minimize+exe+size</a> [google.com] - a mere 1/2 million hits?  An Anonymous Coward, indeed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

It's good to see Linux catching up; to think, PE executables are... PE executables!<br> <br>

       What has been will be again,
       what has been done will be done again;
       there is nothing new under the sun</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/search ? q = minimize + exe + size [ google.com ] - a mere 1/2 million hits ?
An Anonymous Coward , indeed : ) It 's good to see Linux catching up ; to think , PE executables are... PE executables !
What has been will be again , what has been done will be done again ; there is nothing new under the sun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/search?q=minimize+exe+size [google.com] - a mere 1/2 million hits?
An Anonymous Coward, indeed :)

It's good to see Linux catching up; to think, PE executables are... PE executables!
What has been will be again,
       what has been done will be done again;
       there is nothing new under the sun</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505906</id>
	<title>Re:IEFBR14</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not so much an exploit of JCL's functions as a crutch to work around its limitations. The necessity to use something like IEFBR14 speaks volumes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not so much an exploit of JCL 's functions as a crutch to work around its limitations .
The necessity to use something like IEFBR14 speaks volumes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not so much an exploit of JCL's functions as a crutch to work around its limitations.
The necessity to use something like IEFBR14 speaks volumes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506378</id>
	<title>Goes to show ...</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1268825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goes to show that C is nothing but a bunch of bloatware and the c advocates nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. This will shut them up once they come to me ragging on Python or PHP again. Ha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goes to show that C is nothing but a bunch of bloatware and the c advocates nothing but a bunch of hypocrites .
This will shut them up once they come to me ragging on Python or PHP again .
Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goes to show that C is nothing but a bunch of bloatware and the c advocates nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
This will shut them up once they come to me ragging on Python or PHP again.
Ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509944</id>
	<title>Re:How about 28 bytes?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did you put it in your porn folder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you put it in your porn folder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did you put it in your porn folder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504912</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, but</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1268760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you symlink<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null to Soviet Russia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you symlink /dev/null to Soviet Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you symlink /dev/null to Soviet Russia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31511378</id>
	<title>write 800 lines of assembly</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1268850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to optimise your output file.
<p>Oh, this isn't C it's assembly, so the title of this thread is all off.  It should be how to rewrite your C code in assembly to optimise your code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to optimise your output file .
Oh , this is n't C it 's assembly , so the title of this thread is all off .
It should be how to rewrite your C code in assembly to optimise your code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to optimise your output file.
Oh, this isn't C it's assembly, so the title of this thread is all off.
It should be how to rewrite your C code in assembly to optimise your code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504776</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, hello world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot compiler says to include time.h and string.h or you'll have undefined behavior.</p><p>Slashdot compiler recommends against assuming ASCII (or equivalent for 0-127) character set but applauds the attempt to be obfuscated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot compiler says to include time.h and string.h or you 'll have undefined behavior.Slashdot compiler recommends against assuming ASCII ( or equivalent for 0-127 ) character set but applauds the attempt to be obfuscated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot compiler says to include time.h and string.h or you'll have undefined behavior.Slashdot compiler recommends against assuming ASCII (or equivalent for 0-127) character set but applauds the attempt to be obfuscated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060</id>
	<title>11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1268751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An 11k app is not going to make me, or my computer, say 'Good Bye World', so I don't know what the big deal is. "Hello World' != 'Good By Compiler'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An 11k app is not going to make me , or my computer , say 'Good Bye World ' , so I do n't know what the big deal is .
" Hello World ' ! = 'Good By Compiler' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An 11k app is not going to make me, or my computer, say 'Good Bye World', so I don't know what the big deal is.
"Hello World' != 'Good By Compiler'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504708</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>November 1999.  Slow news day much?</p></div><p>That would explain why as I followed the exercise along in my terminal, I got this warning:

</p><p> <tt>"ld: warning: option -s is obsolete and being ignored"</tt> </p><p>

A decade obsolete as it turns out. I suppose when PC's started measuring their RAM in gigabytes, there was little need to strip executables anymore. Still, the article was a very fun read and took me back to the 80's when I was programming at the byte level myself. See also: One-line programming contests and the like. Much more fun (to me) than today's object-oriented everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>November 1999 .
Slow news day much ? That would explain why as I followed the exercise along in my terminal , I got this warning : " ld : warning : option -s is obsolete and being ignored " A decade obsolete as it turns out .
I suppose when PC 's started measuring their RAM in gigabytes , there was little need to strip executables anymore .
Still , the article was a very fun read and took me back to the 80 's when I was programming at the byte level myself .
See also : One-line programming contests and the like .
Much more fun ( to me ) than today 's object-oriented everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>November 1999.
Slow news day much?That would explain why as I followed the exercise along in my terminal, I got this warning:

 "ld: warning: option -s is obsolete and being ignored" 

A decade obsolete as it turns out.
I suppose when PC's started measuring their RAM in gigabytes, there was little need to strip executables anymore.
Still, the article was a very fun read and took me back to the 80's when I was programming at the byte level myself.
See also: One-line programming contests and the like.
Much more fun (to me) than today's object-oriented everything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505912</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I think it's worth pointing out that the author of the <strong>the muppetlabs link</strong> is a man. I know, reading comments is even harder than reading the summary...<blockquote><div><p>This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter (aka Organic Worker Drone BR903), who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I think it 's worth pointing out that the author of the the muppetlabs link is a man .
I know , reading comments is even harder than reading the summary...This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter ( aka Organic Worker Drone BR903 ) , who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I think it's worth pointing out that the author of the the muppetlabs link is a man.
I know, reading comments is even harder than reading the summary...This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter (aka Organic Worker Drone BR903), who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506160</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can write it in java, or god forbid, C#, and still pretend that it is not only as efficient (or maybe more!, you know, that JIT thing...) as the native version, but also more portable.</p><p>This article is NOT about saving a few bytes. It's about knowing your stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can write it in java , or god forbid , C # , and still pretend that it is not only as efficient ( or maybe more ! , you know , that JIT thing... ) as the native version , but also more portable.This article is NOT about saving a few bytes .
It 's about knowing your stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can write it in java, or god forbid, C#, and still pretend that it is not only as efficient (or maybe more!, you know, that JIT thing...) as the native version, but also more portable.This article is NOT about saving a few bytes.
It's about knowing your stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31519112</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>kmoser</author>
	<datestamp>1268846880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but she <a href="http://web.mit.edu/jesstess/Public/men.JPG" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">hates men</a> [mit.edu]. That's hot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but she hates men [ mit.edu ] .
That 's hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but she hates men [mit.edu].
That's hot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>jlehtira</author>
	<datestamp>1268832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.</p></div><p>This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.</p></div><p>Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from? That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.</p><p>I'm actually very happy that someone out there told me something that you think I should <i>just know</i>.</p><p>So it wasn't new to you? Don't read it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She found that gcc was including libc even when you do n't ask for it.This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.Okay , and where am I supposed to learn it from ?
That was new to me , after using gcc for a very long time.I 'm actually very happy that someone out there told me something that you think I should just know.So it was n't new to you ?
Do n't read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from?
That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.I'm actually very happy that someone out there told me something that you think I should just know.So it wasn't new to you?
Don't read it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508736</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1268841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I could write in Java without having an understanding of the APIs. I tend to write way better in C than my peers, but that's because I'm a fan of extreme code reuse and hierarchical problem solving, as well as unit testing and the like.  As such, I'm used to programs that take 5 megs of RAM to do what something written in C++, Java, or C# takes 500 megs of RAM to do.
</p><p>
Too bad my computer limps around with 4 gigs of RAM, loading my desktop in 400+ megs off a clean install.  I remember when I ran on 64 megs, and that was a lot...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I could write in Java without having an understanding of the APIs .
I tend to write way better in C than my peers , but that 's because I 'm a fan of extreme code reuse and hierarchical problem solving , as well as unit testing and the like .
As such , I 'm used to programs that take 5 megs of RAM to do what something written in C + + , Java , or C # takes 500 megs of RAM to do .
Too bad my computer limps around with 4 gigs of RAM , loading my desktop in 400 + megs off a clean install .
I remember when I ran on 64 megs , and that was a lot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I could write in Java without having an understanding of the APIs.
I tend to write way better in C than my peers, but that's because I'm a fan of extreme code reuse and hierarchical problem solving, as well as unit testing and the like.
As such, I'm used to programs that take 5 megs of RAM to do what something written in C++, Java, or C# takes 500 megs of RAM to do.
Too bad my computer limps around with 4 gigs of RAM, loading my desktop in 400+ megs off a clean install.
I remember when I ran on 64 megs, and that was a lot...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</id>
	<title>Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http://muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http://muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html</a> [archive.org]</p><p>November 1999.  Slow news day much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http : //muppetlabs.com/ ~ breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html [ archive.org ] November 1999 .
Slow news day much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http://muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html [archive.org]November 1999.
Slow news day much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1268761200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree that programs are bloated.  In most cases, we code to deliver a product at a reasonable cost.  Competent trained humans are much more expensive than gates.  This is why few people code in C.  They want fancy features like trash collection, signaling, and GUI.  While all of these can be custom coded on a case by case basis so that only the features needed are included, and the libraries are optimized.  Of course competent programmers do not need trash collection, but it sure makes life easier, and can cut down on programming hours.  So we tolerate a bit of inefficiency because, frankly, very few people are going to pay double the price so they can use a 500 MHz 256B computers.  The average person is more likely going to pay $400 for a 2 GHZ @GB machine, and then want the software for little or no money.
<p>
Now, that is not to say the libraries should not be optimized.  It makes economic sense to spend significant time on such code.  Just look at MS Vista.  But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that programs are bloated .
In most cases , we code to deliver a product at a reasonable cost .
Competent trained humans are much more expensive than gates .
This is why few people code in C. They want fancy features like trash collection , signaling , and GUI .
While all of these can be custom coded on a case by case basis so that only the features needed are included , and the libraries are optimized .
Of course competent programmers do not need trash collection , but it sure makes life easier , and can cut down on programming hours .
So we tolerate a bit of inefficiency because , frankly , very few people are going to pay double the price so they can use a 500 MHz 256B computers .
The average person is more likely going to pay $ 400 for a 2 GHZ @ GB machine , and then want the software for little or no money .
Now , that is not to say the libraries should not be optimized .
It makes economic sense to spend significant time on such code .
Just look at MS Vista .
But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that programs are bloated.
In most cases, we code to deliver a product at a reasonable cost.
Competent trained humans are much more expensive than gates.
This is why few people code in C.  They want fancy features like trash collection, signaling, and GUI.
While all of these can be custom coded on a case by case basis so that only the features needed are included, and the libraries are optimized.
Of course competent programmers do not need trash collection, but it sure makes life easier, and can cut down on programming hours.
So we tolerate a bit of inefficiency because, frankly, very few people are going to pay double the price so they can use a 500 MHz 256B computers.
The average person is more likely going to pay $400 for a 2 GHZ @GB machine, and then want the software for little or no money.
Now, that is not to say the libraries should not be optimized.
It makes economic sense to spend significant time on such code.
Just look at MS Vista.
But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505060</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please tag this article with "duh".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please tag this article with " duh " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please tag this article with "duh".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506632</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1268829180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, that's below the belt.</p><p>Gates isn't THAT incompetent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , that 's below the belt.Gates is n't THAT incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, that's below the belt.Gates isn't THAT incompetent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504442</id>
	<title>OK, now generalize that</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1268755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patch the <em>strip</em> utility on Linux,
send in the patch and see if it gets accepted.
Then let's see a follow-up of that on Slashdot.
She's taking a lot of flack here; but there's value
in the work.  It just needs to be applied in a more
practical way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patch the strip utility on Linux , send in the patch and see if it gets accepted .
Then let 's see a follow-up of that on Slashdot .
She 's taking a lot of flack here ; but there 's value in the work .
It just needs to be applied in a more practical way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patch the strip utility on Linux,
send in the patch and see if it gets accepted.
Then let's see a follow-up of that on Slashdot.
She's taking a lot of flack here; but there's value
in the work.
It just needs to be applied in a more
practical way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506262</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1268824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!' part of a hello world program.</p></div></blockquote><p>She's a woman, what did you expect? To actually have your hello world program output hello world?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World !
' part of a hello world program.She 's a woman , what did you expect ?
To actually have your hello world program output hello world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!
' part of a hello world program.She's a woman, what did you expect?
To actually have your hello world program output hello world?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand the point of the article, and everything else mentioned here. I just think that the amount of time spent eliminating 11k from a program <i>in this case</i> is irrelevant because any <i>real</i> application is going to need libc. It's not like she needed to strip it out so it would fit inside a tiny corner of an embedded processor - she's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand the point of the article , and everything else mentioned here .
I just think that the amount of time spent eliminating 11k from a program in this case is irrelevant because any real application is going to need libc .
It 's not like she needed to strip it out so it would fit inside a tiny corner of an embedded processor - she 's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand the point of the article, and everything else mentioned here.
I just think that the amount of time spent eliminating 11k from a program in this case is irrelevant because any real application is going to need libc.
It's not like she needed to strip it out so it would fit inside a tiny corner of an embedded processor - she's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505640</id>
	<title>This has SO been done before</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1268816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html" title="muppetlabs.com" rel="nofollow">A Whirlwind Tutorial on Creating Really Teensy ELF Executables for Linux</a> [muppetlabs.com] </p><p> <a href="http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kikx/20061111" title="hatena.ne.jp" rel="nofollow">The smallest Linux ELF binary to print &rsquo;Hello world!&rsquo;</a> [hatena.ne.jp] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Whirlwind Tutorial on Creating Really Teensy ELF Executables for Linux [ muppetlabs.com ] The smallest Linux ELF binary to print    Hello world !    [ hatena.ne.jp ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A Whirlwind Tutorial on Creating Really Teensy ELF Executables for Linux [muppetlabs.com]  The smallest Linux ELF binary to print ’Hello world!’ [hatena.ne.jp] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504250</id>
	<title>Something similar</title>
	<author>crow</author>
	<datestamp>1268753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a laptop that was really short on memory back in 1996 or so.  I liked having the six virtual consoles, but rarely used them, so I wrote a program that would wait for you to press enter, then exec the regular login program.  It copied the executable onto the same page as the stack and had no globals, so at run time, it used exactly one page of RAM.  I used the same technique as the author here of calling syscalls directly instead of using libc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a laptop that was really short on memory back in 1996 or so .
I liked having the six virtual consoles , but rarely used them , so I wrote a program that would wait for you to press enter , then exec the regular login program .
It copied the executable onto the same page as the stack and had no globals , so at run time , it used exactly one page of RAM .
I used the same technique as the author here of calling syscalls directly instead of using libc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a laptop that was really short on memory back in 1996 or so.
I liked having the six virtual consoles, but rarely used them, so I wrote a program that would wait for you to press enter, then exec the regular login program.
It copied the executable onto the same page as the stack and had no globals, so at run time, it used exactly one page of RAM.
I used the same technique as the author here of calling syscalls directly instead of using libc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506312</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>42 isn't the answer to every possible question, it's only the answer to "what do you get when you multiply six by nine". It may be the answer to the only question that has any fundamental relevance in this universe, but I'm sure there are other universes that were designed to answer other questions. Some of them might have got it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>42 is n't the answer to every possible question , it 's only the answer to " what do you get when you multiply six by nine " .
It may be the answer to the only question that has any fundamental relevance in this universe , but I 'm sure there are other universes that were designed to answer other questions .
Some of them might have got it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>42 isn't the answer to every possible question, it's only the answer to "what do you get when you multiply six by nine".
It may be the answer to the only question that has any fundamental relevance in this universe, but I'm sure there are other universes that were designed to answer other questions.
Some of them might have got it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518614</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1268842320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compiling code in your basement doesn't mean you know C.</p><p>Googling random shit on the Internet and getting something to compile doesn't mean you know the language.</p><p>Backing a car out of your drive doesn't mean you can actually drive.</p><p>I'm sorry to burst the bubble you and most of the 'geeks' on the Internet seem to have, but you really don't have a clue if you didn't know this.</p><p>This is something that comes up VERY FREAKING EARLY ON in the education process of learning to program.  Given enough time you should be able to infer it on your own.</p><p>My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C.  This is about the same as people who think because they can make a form in VB that they are programmers and can make production quality software.</p><p>I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning.  The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program.  The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us.  Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file and manipulate it, can someone give me everything I need to do that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as an example, but working for me!'  to which if you get a response, will be one of two things 'learn to code'  or  'read the docs'.</p><p>You'll find doctors have the same sort of reaction when you tell them you've been playing doctor for yourself for years with things you saw on the Internet.  Those of us with a clue tend to get annoyed by people with no clue who think because they've been doing it for years (most likely wrongly) they get to be treated like they have a clue.</p><p>Make a statement that makes it clear you don't have a clue when you're hanging out with a bunch of people that DO have a clue tends to get you treated like someone who shouldn't be participating in the conversation.</p><p>To programmers, the statement made here is roughly like this:</p><p>Motivating a car using a gasoline engine or electric motor is a lot easier than pushing it with human.</p><p>Thats the level of statement made here.  If someone walked up to you and told you that, you'd say 'uhm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no shit sherlock, if you didn't know that you don't need to drive a car'</p><p>While that might be useful for a caveman to know, its not useful for anyone who should be driving a car, and anyone who does drive a car, that isn't aware of the facts of the statement shouldn't be driving a car.</p><p>Don't tell us about how long you've been using GCC when you have absolutely no idea how it works, the length of time is irrelevant if you don't bother to educate yourself on how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compiling code in your basement does n't mean you know C.Googling random shit on the Internet and getting something to compile does n't mean you know the language.Backing a car out of your drive does n't mean you can actually drive.I 'm sorry to burst the bubble you and most of the 'geeks ' on the Internet seem to have , but you really do n't have a clue if you did n't know this.This is something that comes up VERY FREAKING EARLY ON in the education process of learning to program .
Given enough time you should be able to infer it on your own.My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards , cut and paste , and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C. This is about the same as people who think because they can make a form in VB that they are programmers and can make production quality software.I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning .
The thing is , if you do n't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program .
The problem is , for those of us who know what we 're doing , people like you who THINK you have a clue , but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us .
Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I 'm trying to read xml from a file and manipulate it , can someone give me everything I need to do that ... as an example , but working for me !
' to which if you get a response , will be one of two things 'learn to code ' or 'read the docs'.You 'll find doctors have the same sort of reaction when you tell them you 've been playing doctor for yourself for years with things you saw on the Internet .
Those of us with a clue tend to get annoyed by people with no clue who think because they 've been doing it for years ( most likely wrongly ) they get to be treated like they have a clue.Make a statement that makes it clear you do n't have a clue when you 're hanging out with a bunch of people that DO have a clue tends to get you treated like someone who should n't be participating in the conversation.To programmers , the statement made here is roughly like this : Motivating a car using a gasoline engine or electric motor is a lot easier than pushing it with human.Thats the level of statement made here .
If someone walked up to you and told you that , you 'd say 'uhm ... no shit sherlock , if you did n't know that you do n't need to drive a car'While that might be useful for a caveman to know , its not useful for anyone who should be driving a car , and anyone who does drive a car , that is n't aware of the facts of the statement should n't be driving a car.Do n't tell us about how long you 've been using GCC when you have absolutely no idea how it works , the length of time is irrelevant if you do n't bother to educate yourself on how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compiling code in your basement doesn't mean you know C.Googling random shit on the Internet and getting something to compile doesn't mean you know the language.Backing a car out of your drive doesn't mean you can actually drive.I'm sorry to burst the bubble you and most of the 'geeks' on the Internet seem to have, but you really don't have a clue if you didn't know this.This is something that comes up VERY FREAKING EARLY ON in the education process of learning to program.
Given enough time you should be able to infer it on your own.My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C.  This is about the same as people who think because they can make a form in VB that they are programmers and can make production quality software.I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning.
The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program.
The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us.
Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file and manipulate it, can someone give me everything I need to do that ... as an example, but working for me!
'  to which if you get a response, will be one of two things 'learn to code'  or  'read the docs'.You'll find doctors have the same sort of reaction when you tell them you've been playing doctor for yourself for years with things you saw on the Internet.
Those of us with a clue tend to get annoyed by people with no clue who think because they've been doing it for years (most likely wrongly) they get to be treated like they have a clue.Make a statement that makes it clear you don't have a clue when you're hanging out with a bunch of people that DO have a clue tends to get you treated like someone who shouldn't be participating in the conversation.To programmers, the statement made here is roughly like this:Motivating a car using a gasoline engine or electric motor is a lot easier than pushing it with human.Thats the level of statement made here.
If someone walked up to you and told you that, you'd say 'uhm ... no shit sherlock, if you didn't know that you don't need to drive a car'While that might be useful for a caveman to know, its not useful for anyone who should be driving a car, and anyone who does drive a car, that isn't aware of the facts of the statement shouldn't be driving a car.Don't tell us about how long you've been using GCC when you have absolutely no idea how it works, the length of time is irrelevant if you don't bother to educate yourself on how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507918</id>
	<title>Interesting, but ...</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1268838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a flaw (including libc), but the fact is, we very seldom are going to create programs that aren't going to require the inclusion anyway. <br> <br>
I'll admit it is embarrassing because of the historical efficiency of 'C', but a program that prints a simple message or exits with an error code is not a real-world application nor a real indicator of how efficient the language is for actual application development.<br> <br>
It is a good for a yuck though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a flaw ( including libc ) , but the fact is , we very seldom are going to create programs that are n't going to require the inclusion anyway .
I 'll admit it is embarrassing because of the historical efficiency of 'C ' , but a program that prints a simple message or exits with an error code is not a real-world application nor a real indicator of how efficient the language is for actual application development .
It is a good for a yuck though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a flaw (including libc), but the fact is, we very seldom are going to create programs that aren't going to require the inclusion anyway.
I'll admit it is embarrassing because of the historical efficiency of 'C', but a program that prints a simple message or exits with an error code is not a real-world application nor a real indicator of how efficient the language is for actual application development.
It is a good for a yuck though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504466</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, but</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1268755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Maybe they should call it Hello 42, I can see you with a debugger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything ?
      Maybe they should call it Hello 42 , I can see you with a debugger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything?
      Maybe they should call it Hello 42, I can see you with a debugger?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506906</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1268831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steady on - it's the first time in years that kdawson has posted anything that's not a shill for snake oil salesmen.  Let's encourage him in his new-found appreciated of actual tech news, even if it's old news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steady on - it 's the first time in years that kdawson has posted anything that 's not a shill for snake oil salesmen .
Let 's encourage him in his new-found appreciated of actual tech news , even if it 's old news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steady on - it's the first time in years that kdawson has posted anything that's not a shill for snake oil salesmen.
Let's encourage him in his new-found appreciated of actual tech news, even if it's old news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507872</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1268838060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be silly. The two articles were written by two different people, one of each sex.  They were equally lame. If you look at the comment thread for the previous article, dozens of people slammed it for making false and misleading claims.  What next - an article that goes "gee whiz - did you know you can use a hex editor to write binary code directly, without an assembler?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly .
The two articles were written by two different people , one of each sex .
They were equally lame .
If you look at the comment thread for the previous article , dozens of people slammed it for making false and misleading claims .
What next - an article that goes " gee whiz - did you know you can use a hex editor to write binary code directly , without an assembler ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly.
The two articles were written by two different people, one of each sex.
They were equally lame.
If you look at the comment thread for the previous article, dozens of people slammed it for making false and misleading claims.
What next - an article that goes "gee whiz - did you know you can use a hex editor to write binary code directly, without an assembler?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510556</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step four doesn't exist, so I assume it's '...'. Shouldn't step 5 be 'Profit'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step four does n't exist , so I assume it 's '...' .
Should n't step 5 be 'Profit ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step four doesn't exist, so I assume it's '...'.
Shouldn't step 5 be 'Profit'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</id>
	<title>Simpler "Hello World" in C?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end, the code was assembler, and the compiler wasn't even called - just the linker. I can't say for sure where a C program ends and an assembler program begins, but I'm fairly certain that the last few iterations are assembler, based on the "let's do away with the compiler" suggestion.</p><p>Also, "Hello World" programs have to, you know, actually display the message "Hello World" - <b>this is a program that isn't written in C, and doesn't write "Hello World"</b> - <i>care to revisit the title of this entry?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end , the code was assembler , and the compiler was n't even called - just the linker .
I ca n't say for sure where a C program ends and an assembler program begins , but I 'm fairly certain that the last few iterations are assembler , based on the " let 's do away with the compiler " suggestion.Also , " Hello World " programs have to , you know , actually display the message " Hello World " - this is a program that is n't written in C , and does n't write " Hello World " - care to revisit the title of this entry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end, the code was assembler, and the compiler wasn't even called - just the linker.
I can't say for sure where a C program ends and an assembler program begins, but I'm fairly certain that the last few iterations are assembler, based on the "let's do away with the compiler" suggestion.Also, "Hello World" programs have to, you know, actually display the message "Hello World" - this is a program that isn't written in C, and doesn't write "Hello World" - care to revisit the title of this entry?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506826</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A modern PDP-8 isn't so heavy anymore.  Well, I soldered mine together perhaps 5 years ago.</p><p><a href="http://www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/SBC6120-2.htm" title="sparetimegizmos.com">http://www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/SBC6120-2.htm</a> [sparetimegizmos.com]</p><p>I mostly run OS-8 on mine, just for run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A modern PDP-8 is n't so heavy anymore .
Well , I soldered mine together perhaps 5 years ago.http : //www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/SBC6120-2.htm [ sparetimegizmos.com ] I mostly run OS-8 on mine , just for run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A modern PDP-8 isn't so heavy anymore.
Well, I soldered mine together perhaps 5 years ago.http://www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/SBC6120-2.htm [sparetimegizmos.com]I mostly run OS-8 on mine, just for run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507182</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These days, costs of development and deployment, not runtime memory usage, are the limiting factors in software development.</p></div><p>So, how's the weather in Redmond today?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , costs of development and deployment , not runtime memory usage , are the limiting factors in software development.So , how 's the weather in Redmond today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, costs of development and deployment, not runtime memory usage, are the limiting factors in software development.So, how's the weather in Redmond today?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507448</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both my sisters know C and could easily write a hello world program (and have). Of course the binaries they create are larger than 1.3kb, but at least they would print "hello world".</p><p>
Not all women write software that does not even perform a simple task correctly and require platform specific hacks to run without segfaulting. I am disappointed by your misogynistic pointing towards her gender to blame this waste of time on her being female, as if no male has ever done something like this. Maybe you think this is just a humorous attempt of "the weaker sex" to try a man's job.</p><p>But sarcasm aside, what you said was pretty patronizing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both my sisters know C and could easily write a hello world program ( and have ) .
Of course the binaries they create are larger than 1.3kb , but at least they would print " hello world " .
Not all women write software that does not even perform a simple task correctly and require platform specific hacks to run without segfaulting .
I am disappointed by your misogynistic pointing towards her gender to blame this waste of time on her being female , as if no male has ever done something like this .
Maybe you think this is just a humorous attempt of " the weaker sex " to try a man 's job.But sarcasm aside , what you said was pretty patronizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both my sisters know C and could easily write a hello world program (and have).
Of course the binaries they create are larger than 1.3kb, but at least they would print "hello world".
Not all women write software that does not even perform a simple task correctly and require platform specific hacks to run without segfaulting.
I am disappointed by your misogynistic pointing towards her gender to blame this waste of time on her being female, as if no male has ever done something like this.
Maybe you think this is just a humorous attempt of "the weaker sex" to try a man's job.But sarcasm aside, what you said was pretty patronizing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504374</id>
	<title>To answer the author's last question...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1268754720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
scripts.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
After all, there's no strict requirement that executable files on Linux be native machine code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>scripts .
: ) After all , there 's no strict requirement that executable files on Linux be native machine code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
scripts.
:)

After all, there's no strict requirement that executable files on Linux be native machine code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518212</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1268838540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also old information. I read this 10 or 15 years ago along with linuxassembly.org. All C programmers should at least look through some of this stuff so they know how the underlying system works.

</p><p>This type of stuff would be useful for embedded programming, because linking to and needing bloated libc wastes a lot of space (and is slightly slower). Direct syscalls and static linking should be options because they are useful at certain times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also old information .
I read this 10 or 15 years ago along with linuxassembly.org .
All C programmers should at least look through some of this stuff so they know how the underlying system works .
This type of stuff would be useful for embedded programming , because linking to and needing bloated libc wastes a lot of space ( and is slightly slower ) .
Direct syscalls and static linking should be options because they are useful at certain times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also old information.
I read this 10 or 15 years ago along with linuxassembly.org.
All C programmers should at least look through some of this stuff so they know how the underlying system works.
This type of stuff would be useful for embedded programming, because linking to and needing bloated libc wastes a lot of space (and is slightly slower).
Direct syscalls and static linking should be options because they are useful at certain times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505194</id>
	<title>It just works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268765040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It compiles to 13340 bytes on OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It compiles to 13340 bytes on OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It compiles to 13340 bytes on OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506426</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>sxrysafis</author>
	<datestamp>1268826600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just add -fno-implicit-templates in the compiler's options and explicitly instantiate only the ones you need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just add -fno-implicit-templates in the compiler 's options and explicitly instantiate only the ones you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just add -fno-implicit-templates in the compiler's options and explicitly instantiate only the ones you need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504360</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1268754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the submitter didn't read the article. It isn't Hello World, and it isn't in C (at least not by the end of the article).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the submitter did n't read the article .
It is n't Hello World , and it is n't in C ( at least not by the end of the article ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the submitter didn't read the article.
It isn't Hello World, and it isn't in C (at least not by the end of the article).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506200</id>
	<title>Whole article misses the point I think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article makes it sound like it's something ingenious to write a 'hello world' that way or that it's about some practise that is useful for usual programs, yet it's rather just an example on how to get tiny executables due to avoiding linking with the C stdlib and still doing a bit of output. I see this rather as a demonstration of a technique that's maybe interesting for code for specific devices that require such stuff etc.<br>It's not about: 'Hey, I've made the most ingenious smallest 'Hallo World !' or meant as something that everyone might want or needs to use somehow, it's kind of a tutorial to write code that requires something like that. So same level as tutorials about how to hook api functions and all that in windows or other 'tricks' someone might need in some situations.<br>So mmh. just my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article makes it sound like it 's something ingenious to write a 'hello world ' that way or that it 's about some practise that is useful for usual programs , yet it 's rather just an example on how to get tiny executables due to avoiding linking with the C stdlib and still doing a bit of output .
I see this rather as a demonstration of a technique that 's maybe interesting for code for specific devices that require such stuff etc.It 's not about : 'Hey , I 've made the most ingenious smallest 'Hallo World !
' or meant as something that everyone might want or needs to use somehow , it 's kind of a tutorial to write code that requires something like that .
So same level as tutorials about how to hook api functions and all that in windows or other 'tricks ' someone might need in some situations.So mmh .
just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article makes it sound like it's something ingenious to write a 'hello world' that way or that it's about some practise that is useful for usual programs, yet it's rather just an example on how to get tiny executables due to avoiding linking with the C stdlib and still doing a bit of output.
I see this rather as a demonstration of a technique that's maybe interesting for code for specific devices that require such stuff etc.It's not about: 'Hey, I've made the most ingenious smallest 'Hallo World !
' or meant as something that everyone might want or needs to use somehow, it's kind of a tutorial to write code that requires something like that.
So same level as tutorials about how to hook api functions and all that in windows or other 'tricks' someone might need in some situations.So mmh.
just my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510298</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>]call-151<br>*!<br>!300:ldy #0<br>!:lda 30e,y<br>!:beq 30d<br>!:jsr fded<br>!:iny<br>!:bne 302<br>!:rts<br>!<br>*30e:c8 e5 ec ec ef ac a0 f7 ef f2 ec e4 00<br>*300g<br>Hello, world<br>*</tt> <p>(OK, so it still relies on a Monitor routine to do character output, but if you replaced "jsr fded" with something like "sta 400,y", you'd blast it straight to the upper-left corner of the screen and use no outside routines at all.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>] call-151 * !
! 300 : ldy # 0 !
: lda 30e,y !
: beq 30d !
: jsr fded ! : iny !
: bne 302 ! : rts !
* 30e : c8 e5 ec ec ef ac a0 f7 ef f2 ec e4 00 * 300gHello , world * ( OK , so it still relies on a Monitor routine to do character output , but if you replaced " jsr fded " with something like " sta 400,y " , you 'd blast it straight to the upper-left corner of the screen and use no outside routines at all .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>]call-151*!
!300:ldy #0!
:lda 30e,y!
:beq 30d!
:jsr fded!:iny!
:bne 302!:rts!
*30e:c8 e5 ec ec ef ac a0 f7 ef f2 ec e4 00*300gHello, world* (OK, so it still relies on a Monitor routine to do character output, but if you replaced "jsr fded" with something like "sta 400,y", you'd blast it straight to the upper-left corner of the screen and use no outside routines at all.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504904</id>
	<title>Even smaller using a.out format ?</title>
	<author>dougmc</author>
	<datestamp>1268760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, he's cheating a bit -- this really isn't a C program anymore -- it's an assembly program.  Since it's apparently OK to change languages, we could simply do this --<blockquote><div><p> <tt> #!/bin/sh<br> exit 42</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... though that's obviously violating the spirit of the exercise.
</p><p>
But it's possible he could make it shorter.  Linux has used ELF since 1.2, but it used the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.out" title="wikipedia.org">a.out</a> [wikipedia.org] format before that (yes, gcc still creates a file called a.out by default, but the reasons for that are historical -- the name of the output file and the format really are unrelated.)  And it looks like modern kernels still have the code for CONFIG\_HAVE\_AOUT even if it doesn't seem to really be enabled often anymore.

</p><p>

In any event, a.out is a good deal simpler than elf.  I'll bet he could make his program even shorter by using it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , he 's cheating a bit -- this really is n't a C program anymore -- it 's an assembly program .
Since it 's apparently OK to change languages , we could simply do this -- # ! /bin/sh exit 42 ... though that 's obviously violating the spirit of the exercise .
But it 's possible he could make it shorter .
Linux has used ELF since 1.2 , but it used the a.out [ wikipedia.org ] format before that ( yes , gcc still creates a file called a.out by default , but the reasons for that are historical -- the name of the output file and the format really are unrelated .
) And it looks like modern kernels still have the code for CONFIG \ _HAVE \ _AOUT even if it does n't seem to really be enabled often anymore .
In any event , a.out is a good deal simpler than elf .
I 'll bet he could make his program even shorter by using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, he's cheating a bit -- this really isn't a C program anymore -- it's an assembly program.
Since it's apparently OK to change languages, we could simply do this --  #!/bin/sh exit 42  ... though that's obviously violating the spirit of the exercise.
But it's possible he could make it shorter.
Linux has used ELF since 1.2, but it used the a.out [wikipedia.org] format before that (yes, gcc still creates a file called a.out by default, but the reasons for that are historical -- the name of the output file and the format really are unrelated.
)  And it looks like modern kernels still have the code for CONFIG\_HAVE\_AOUT even if it doesn't seem to really be enabled often anymore.
In any event, a.out is a good deal simpler than elf.
I'll bet he could make his program even shorter by using it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509254</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1268844000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS is very confusing because it links to two seemingly different examples of how to create a tiny executables on Linux.  There's the MIT one by Jessica McKellar (second link in the summary) which is an example of a Hello World.  Then there's the third link in the summary which appears to be by Brian Raiter.  This third link is just creating the smallest ELF program possible--it just returns the number 42 to the OS without printing anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS is very confusing because it links to two seemingly different examples of how to create a tiny executables on Linux .
There 's the MIT one by Jessica McKellar ( second link in the summary ) which is an example of a Hello World .
Then there 's the third link in the summary which appears to be by Brian Raiter .
This third link is just creating the smallest ELF program possible--it just returns the number 42 to the OS without printing anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS is very confusing because it links to two seemingly different examples of how to create a tiny executables on Linux.
There's the MIT one by Jessica McKellar (second link in the summary) which is an example of a Hello World.
Then there's the third link in the summary which appears to be by Brian Raiter.
This third link is just creating the smallest ELF program possible--it just returns the number 42 to the OS without printing anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505056</id>
	<title>Did similar back in MS-DOS 2.11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the early 1980s, I was doing development on MS-DOS 2.11 - the first real working version of MS-DOS that resembled Xenix more than CP/M.</p><p>I was using a combination of Lattice C and assembly language to do my day job.  But I was upset about the libc bloat that Lattice C would drag into the program.  Over the Christmas break, I sat down and wrote a tiny version of libc, with the 60\% of the calls I actually used.  Most of them were either thin wrappers on top of MS-DOS Int21 calls, assembly language implementations (the string functions), or reduced functionality (printf didn't handle strange alignments, floats or doubles), and custom startup/exit code.  I also structured the library so that the linker would only link in functions that were actually used.  For simple executables, I saw the on-disk file size drop from 10KB-20KB down to 400-600 bytes.  Another thing that reduced on-disk file size was to create<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com programs, rather than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe programs.</p><p>I was also writing the handful of unix commands that I couldn't do without (ls, cat, cut, paste, grep, fgrep, etc).  Since I was implementing dozens of Unix commands, each statically linked to libc, it was very important to reduce the over-all size of each executable.  Most of the smaller trivial commands were less than 1KB in size.  I think the largest was 4KB.  I also had an emacs clone* that was 36KB when compiled and linked against my tiny lib.</p><p>For the longest time, I carried around a bootable MS-DOS 2.11 floppy, with my dozens of Unix commands, an emacs-like editor, Lattice C compiler, tiny libc, and some core MS-DOS programs.  It allowed my to have my entire development environment on a floppy that I could stick in anyone's machine and make it usable.</p><p>* We had a source license for Mince, orphaned by Mark of the Unicorn, a tiny emacs-clone that ran on CP/M, MS-DOS, and Unix.  We had enhanced it significantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the early 1980s , I was doing development on MS-DOS 2.11 - the first real working version of MS-DOS that resembled Xenix more than CP/M.I was using a combination of Lattice C and assembly language to do my day job .
But I was upset about the libc bloat that Lattice C would drag into the program .
Over the Christmas break , I sat down and wrote a tiny version of libc , with the 60 \ % of the calls I actually used .
Most of them were either thin wrappers on top of MS-DOS Int21 calls , assembly language implementations ( the string functions ) , or reduced functionality ( printf did n't handle strange alignments , floats or doubles ) , and custom startup/exit code .
I also structured the library so that the linker would only link in functions that were actually used .
For simple executables , I saw the on-disk file size drop from 10KB-20KB down to 400-600 bytes .
Another thing that reduced on-disk file size was to create .com programs , rather than .exe programs.I was also writing the handful of unix commands that I could n't do without ( ls , cat , cut , paste , grep , fgrep , etc ) .
Since I was implementing dozens of Unix commands , each statically linked to libc , it was very important to reduce the over-all size of each executable .
Most of the smaller trivial commands were less than 1KB in size .
I think the largest was 4KB .
I also had an emacs clone * that was 36KB when compiled and linked against my tiny lib.For the longest time , I carried around a bootable MS-DOS 2.11 floppy , with my dozens of Unix commands , an emacs-like editor , Lattice C compiler , tiny libc , and some core MS-DOS programs .
It allowed my to have my entire development environment on a floppy that I could stick in anyone 's machine and make it usable .
* We had a source license for Mince , orphaned by Mark of the Unicorn , a tiny emacs-clone that ran on CP/M , MS-DOS , and Unix .
We had enhanced it significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the early 1980s, I was doing development on MS-DOS 2.11 - the first real working version of MS-DOS that resembled Xenix more than CP/M.I was using a combination of Lattice C and assembly language to do my day job.
But I was upset about the libc bloat that Lattice C would drag into the program.
Over the Christmas break, I sat down and wrote a tiny version of libc, with the 60\% of the calls I actually used.
Most of them were either thin wrappers on top of MS-DOS Int21 calls, assembly language implementations (the string functions), or reduced functionality (printf didn't handle strange alignments, floats or doubles), and custom startup/exit code.
I also structured the library so that the linker would only link in functions that were actually used.
For simple executables, I saw the on-disk file size drop from 10KB-20KB down to 400-600 bytes.
Another thing that reduced on-disk file size was to create .com programs, rather than .exe programs.I was also writing the handful of unix commands that I couldn't do without (ls, cat, cut, paste, grep, fgrep, etc).
Since I was implementing dozens of Unix commands, each statically linked to libc, it was very important to reduce the over-all size of each executable.
Most of the smaller trivial commands were less than 1KB in size.
I think the largest was 4KB.
I also had an emacs clone* that was 36KB when compiled and linked against my tiny lib.For the longest time, I carried around a bootable MS-DOS 2.11 floppy, with my dozens of Unix commands, an emacs-like editor, Lattice C compiler, tiny libc, and some core MS-DOS programs.
It allowed my to have my entire development environment on a floppy that I could stick in anyone's machine and make it usable.
* We had a source license for Mince, orphaned by Mark of the Unicorn, a tiny emacs-clone that ran on CP/M, MS-DOS, and Unix.
We had enhanced it significantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504324</id>
	<title>Occams Wedge</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1268754300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Simpler" 'Hello World'?<br>SIMPLER?  Perhaps in the sense of using less bytes, but the article is well beyond your average first year comp sci student so it's certainly not simpler in the sense of being understandable.</p><p>This is what I call "Occam's Wedge", what's simple to you and simple to me may be entirely different leading to a wedge in our argument with both sides insisting Occam is on their side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Simpler " 'Hello World ' ? SIMPLER ?
Perhaps in the sense of using less bytes , but the article is well beyond your average first year comp sci student so it 's certainly not simpler in the sense of being understandable.This is what I call " Occam 's Wedge " , what 's simple to you and simple to me may be entirely different leading to a wedge in our argument with both sides insisting Occam is on their side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Simpler" 'Hello World'?SIMPLER?
Perhaps in the sense of using less bytes, but the article is well beyond your average first year comp sci student so it's certainly not simpler in the sense of being understandable.This is what I call "Occam's Wedge", what's simple to you and simple to me may be entirely different leading to a wedge in our argument with both sides insisting Occam is on their side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504514</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1268756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really do have the wrong sized glass.
</p><p>An 11K program is stored on 22 512 byte blocks.  Reducing the block count by 1/22nd reduces the amount of I/O required to load and execute the program by 95\%.  By reducing the overhead of this example even further to the absolute minimum, you can increase considerably the remaining space which can be used for important code in one block I/O.  Byte counts in Ethernet frames are equally important.  To give an idea of how significant this is, the <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/108996/spread\_of\_slammer\_worm\_slows.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">Slammer Worm</a> [pcworld.com] was 376 bytes.  For an application that nearly shut down the Internet that's a pretty good example of the possible leverage of code density.
</p><p>Reducing code size is a critical factor in achieving optimal efficiencies real-world businesses use to compete against each other.  It's not the only critical factor, but it is one critical factor.  It's important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do have the wrong sized glass .
An 11K program is stored on 22 512 byte blocks .
Reducing the block count by 1/22nd reduces the amount of I/O required to load and execute the program by 95 \ % .
By reducing the overhead of this example even further to the absolute minimum , you can increase considerably the remaining space which can be used for important code in one block I/O .
Byte counts in Ethernet frames are equally important .
To give an idea of how significant this is , the Slammer Worm [ pcworld.com ] was 376 bytes .
For an application that nearly shut down the Internet that 's a pretty good example of the possible leverage of code density .
Reducing code size is a critical factor in achieving optimal efficiencies real-world businesses use to compete against each other .
It 's not the only critical factor , but it is one critical factor .
It 's important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really do have the wrong sized glass.
An 11K program is stored on 22 512 byte blocks.
Reducing the block count by 1/22nd reduces the amount of I/O required to load and execute the program by 95\%.
By reducing the overhead of this example even further to the absolute minimum, you can increase considerably the remaining space which can be used for important code in one block I/O.
Byte counts in Ethernet frames are equally important.
To give an idea of how significant this is, the Slammer Worm [pcworld.com] was 376 bytes.
For an application that nearly shut down the Internet that's a pretty good example of the possible leverage of code density.
Reducing code size is a critical factor in achieving optimal efficiencies real-world businesses use to compete against each other.
It's not the only critical factor, but it is one critical factor.
It's important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507466</id>
	<title>It won't remove them unless you tell it to</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1268835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to explicitly enable function-level linking with gcc. Compile your source files with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections, and then pass -gc-sections flag to ld (-Wl,-gc-sections if linking with gcc). This puts every function into its own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.text.section and allows the linker to prune the ones that are not referenced. The remaining ones are coalesced into a single<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.text section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to explicitly enable function-level linking with gcc .
Compile your source files with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections , and then pass -gc-sections flag to ld ( -Wl,-gc-sections if linking with gcc ) .
This puts every function into its own .text.section and allows the linker to prune the ones that are not referenced .
The remaining ones are coalesced into a single .text section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to explicitly enable function-level linking with gcc.
Compile your source files with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections, and then pass -gc-sections flag to ld (-Wl,-gc-sections if linking with gcc).
This puts every function into its own .text.section and allows the linker to prune the ones that are not referenced.
The remaining ones are coalesced into a single .text section.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505712</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1268817780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article was last updated in 2009 <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensyps.html" title="muppetlabs.com">http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensyps.html</a> [muppetlabs.com]. Check out the link at the bottom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article was last updated in 2009 http : //www.muppetlabs.com/ ~ breadbox/software/tiny/teensyps.html [ muppetlabs.com ] .
Check out the link at the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article was last updated in 2009 http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensyps.html [muppetlabs.com].
Check out the link at the bottom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506008</id>
	<title>Re:Simpler "Hello World" in C?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, i'm kinda glad it doesn't talk, a non-nagging piece of code is fine with me.</p><p>Nagging girls, now there is a problem.  I think we need to talk with the creator to get something done about that volume... preferably a remote control "mute &amp; make me a sandwich" button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i 'm kinda glad it does n't talk , a non-nagging piece of code is fine with me.Nagging girls , now there is a problem .
I think we need to talk with the creator to get something done about that volume... preferably a remote control " mute &amp; make me a sandwich " button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i'm kinda glad it doesn't talk, a non-nagging piece of code is fine with me.Nagging girls, now there is a problem.
I think we need to talk with the creator to get something done about that volume... preferably a remote control "mute &amp; make me a sandwich" button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505636</id>
	<title>Hey, I heard that Windows isn't the only OS...</title>
	<author>N0Man74</author>
	<datestamp>1268816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's too bad with all these things you "heard" that you didn't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows (or Linux, Mac OS, etc), and for devices other than PCs.  It's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you don't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too.  You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example, or also have 1,000 times less RAM.  On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.</p><p>Sure, pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances, but sometimes it's a luxury you can't afford.  The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you've been exposed to.</p><p>I suggest you use some "real" perspective, and reevaluate what a "real language" is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad with all these things you " heard " that you did n't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows ( or Linux , Mac OS , etc ) , and for devices other than PCs .
It 's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you do n't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too .
You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example , or also have 1,000 times less RAM .
On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.Sure , pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances , but sometimes it 's a luxury you ca n't afford .
The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you 've been exposed to.I suggest you use some " real " perspective , and reevaluate what a " real language " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad with all these things you "heard" that you didn't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows (or Linux, Mac OS, etc), and for devices other than PCs.
It's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you don't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too.
You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example, or also have 1,000 times less RAM.
On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.Sure, pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances, but sometimes it's a luxury you can't afford.
The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you've been exposed to.I suggest you use some "real" perspective, and reevaluate what a "real language" is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504232</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1268753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, be nice, it's (evidently) the first slow news day in over 10 years!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , be nice , it 's ( evidently ) the first slow news day in over 10 years !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, be nice, it's (evidently) the first slow news day in over 10 years!
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507394</id>
	<title>My (hello) world is smaller than yours</title>
	<author>FrankDerKte</author>
	<datestamp>1268835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My (hello) world brings all the boys to the yard,<br>And their like<br>It's smaller than yours,<br>Damn right it's smaller than yours,<br>I can teach you,<br>But I have to charge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ( hello ) world brings all the boys to the yard,And their likeIt 's smaller than yours,Damn right it 's smaller than yours,I can teach you,But I have to charge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My (hello) world brings all the boys to the yard,And their likeIt's smaller than yours,Damn right it's smaller than yours,I can teach you,But I have to charge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505902</id>
	<title>One conclusion</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1268820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the article, there's only one conclusion:</p><p>Linking stuff using gcc is horribly ugly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article , there 's only one conclusion : Linking stuff using gcc is horribly ugly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article, there's only one conclusion:Linking stuff using gcc is horribly ugly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505836</id>
	<title>512, 1k, 4k</title>
	<author>HonIsCool</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe check out the demo scene where 512-byte, 1k, or 4k productions are common?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe check out the demo scene where 512-byte , 1k , or 4k productions are common ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe check out the demo scene where 512-byte, 1k, or 4k productions are common?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506864</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1268831400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take note that you don't specify coding to deliver a *good* product at a reasonable cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take note that you do n't specify coding to deliver a * good * product at a reasonable cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take note that you don't specify coding to deliver a *good* product at a reasonable cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506408</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, but</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1268826420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It outputs 42. It helps to read TFA sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It outputs 42 .
It helps to read TFA sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It outputs 42.
It helps to read TFA sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504590</id>
	<title>But you don't understand!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure it's been done before. But this time it was done... by a woman!<br> <br>
I'm not saying that's actually significant, but it seems good enuf for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br> <br>
Case in point: <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/0028201/Mario-Reduced-To-8x8-With-Open-Source-and-Arduino" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/0028201/Mario-Reduced-To-8x8-With-Open-Source-and-Arduino</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it 's been done before .
But this time it was done... by a woman !
I 'm not saying that 's actually significant , but it seems good enuf for / .
Case in point : http : //hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/0028201/Mario-Reduced-To-8x8-With-Open-Source-and-Arduino [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it's been done before.
But this time it was done... by a woman!
I'm not saying that's actually significant, but it seems good enuf for /.
Case in point: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/0028201/Mario-Reduced-To-8x8-With-Open-Source-and-Arduino [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513392</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>azmodean+1</author>
	<datestamp>1268856540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries.  BAD.  Linux kernel people?  Are you reading this?  Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.</p></div><p>You're missing something here.  Linux will execute "inappropriately formatted" binaries in that it completely ignores parts of the ELF header.  This is not exploitable as you could just put that same data in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.data section and make the executable slightly larger.  Executing the "bad" files does not allow the executed process any additional permissions, there's no security hole here.  More like BAD ELF format authors putting in unused fields that just take up space<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Also, while you might be familiar with all kind of assembler tricks (good for you), I for one wasn't, and I was quite intrigued.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries .
BAD. Linux kernel people ?
Are you reading this ?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.You 're missing something here .
Linux will execute " inappropriately formatted " binaries in that it completely ignores parts of the ELF header .
This is not exploitable as you could just put that same data in the .data section and make the executable slightly larger .
Executing the " bad " files does not allow the executed process any additional permissions , there 's no security hole here .
More like BAD ELF format authors putting in unused fields that just take up space : PAlso , while you might be familiar with all kind of assembler tricks ( good for you ) , I for one was n't , and I was quite intrigued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries.
BAD.  Linux kernel people?
Are you reading this?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.You're missing something here.
Linux will execute "inappropriately formatted" binaries in that it completely ignores parts of the ELF header.
This is not exploitable as you could just put that same data in the .data section and make the executable slightly larger.
Executing the "bad" files does not allow the executed process any additional permissions, there's no security hole here.
More like BAD ELF format authors putting in unused fields that just take up space :PAlso, while you might be familiar with all kind of assembler tricks (good for you), I for one wasn't, and I was quite intrigued.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518218</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After 30 years, who remembers?</p><p>If you give up the requirement of making it a complete UNIX executables and making UNIX system calls, I bet I could come up with a version for an IBM 1620 or some other old iron where "punch" was a native instruction that's smaller than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 30 years , who remembers ? If you give up the requirement of making it a complete UNIX executables and making UNIX system calls , I bet I could come up with a version for an IBM 1620 or some other old iron where " punch " was a native instruction that 's smaller than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 30 years, who remembers?If you give up the requirement of making it a complete UNIX executables and making UNIX system calls, I bet I could come up with a version for an IBM 1620 or some other old iron where "punch" was a native instruction that's smaller than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507818</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And somewhat more impressively for female geeks&mdash; geeks in general, really&mdash; she's not a fatty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And somewhat more impressively for female geeks    geeks in general , really    she 's not a fatty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And somewhat more impressively for female geeks— geeks in general, really— she's not a fatty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506380</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1268825880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to be fair - TFA is actually quite good. The summary could be a little more descriptive and have less comments that might have seemed a good teaser to people who didn't know this (and hey, there *are* lots of people who didn't know you can't get rid of libc), but... its a good post 'cos of the article.</p><p>I think a lot of people now are coming to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to read the summary and post, completely forgetting that those summaries are just a quick hint as to which articles you want to go and read. Some, perhaps, you can do without reading TFA - all the 'Microsoft suffers another security flaw' for instance, we don't need to RTFA just to take the piss out of MS!, but the others... they're good articles. Try reading them sometime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to be fair - TFA is actually quite good .
The summary could be a little more descriptive and have less comments that might have seemed a good teaser to people who did n't know this ( and hey , there * are * lots of people who did n't know you ca n't get rid of libc ) , but... its a good post 'cos of the article.I think a lot of people now are coming to / .
to read the summary and post , completely forgetting that those summaries are just a quick hint as to which articles you want to go and read .
Some , perhaps , you can do without reading TFA - all the 'Microsoft suffers another security flaw ' for instance , we do n't need to RTFA just to take the piss out of MS ! , but the others... they 're good articles .
Try reading them sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to be fair - TFA is actually quite good.
The summary could be a little more descriptive and have less comments that might have seemed a good teaser to people who didn't know this (and hey, there *are* lots of people who didn't know you can't get rid of libc), but... its a good post 'cos of the article.I think a lot of people now are coming to /.
to read the summary and post, completely forgetting that those summaries are just a quick hint as to which articles you want to go and read.
Some, perhaps, you can do without reading TFA - all the 'Microsoft suffers another security flaw' for instance, we don't need to RTFA just to take the piss out of MS!, but the others... they're good articles.
Try reading them sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505084</id>
	<title>Could it be?</title>
	<author>WidgetGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I'm in love.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'm in love .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'm in love.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504692</id>
	<title>Bad subject</title>
	<author>customizedmischief</author>
	<datestamp>1268757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops!  Poster misplaced the quotes.  Subject should read:</p><p>"Simpler" Hello World Demonstrated In C</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops !
Poster misplaced the quotes .
Subject should read : " Simpler " Hello World Demonstrated In C</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops!
Poster misplaced the quotes.
Subject should read:"Simpler" Hello World Demonstrated In C</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31514194</id>
	<title>Where's the x86\_64 port?</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1268859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all you people complaining about the original article being old news from 1999... port it to a modern 64-bit architecture!</p><p>Needs a newer nasm or yasm:<br><a href="http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/wiki/AMD64" title="tortall.net">http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/wiki/AMD64</a> [tortall.net]</p><p>Of course, to win the game, you'd probably want to go the other way and backport it to a 16-bit or 8-bit processor.</p><p>Anyway, loved the article... I didn't like the way most CS classes glossed over these kinds of admittedly mundane but practical matters.  I am interested in knowing what every single last damn byte is doing there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all you people complaining about the original article being old news from 1999... port it to a modern 64-bit architecture ! Needs a newer nasm or yasm : http : //www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/wiki/AMD64 [ tortall.net ] Of course , to win the game , you 'd probably want to go the other way and backport it to a 16-bit or 8-bit processor.Anyway , loved the article... I did n't like the way most CS classes glossed over these kinds of admittedly mundane but practical matters .
I am interested in knowing what every single last damn byte is doing there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all you people complaining about the original article being old news from 1999... port it to a modern 64-bit architecture!Needs a newer nasm or yasm:http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/wiki/AMD64 [tortall.net]Of course, to win the game, you'd probably want to go the other way and backport it to a 16-bit or 8-bit processor.Anyway, loved the article... I didn't like the way most CS classes glossed over these kinds of admittedly mundane but practical matters.
I am interested in knowing what every single last damn byte is doing there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31521198</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, she gets a hello world down to 1329 bytes, the bloke who did the 45 byte one was <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/" title="muppetlabs.com" rel="nofollow">Brian Raiter</a> [muppetlabs.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , she gets a hello world down to 1329 bytes , the bloke who did the 45 byte one was Brian Raiter [ muppetlabs.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, she gets a hello world down to 1329 bytes, the bloke who did the 45 byte one was Brian Raiter [muppetlabs.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505956</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>tomtomtom777</author>
	<datestamp>1268820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.</p></div><p>You lucky bastard.</p><p>My parents could never afford such computer. I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memory (Yes that's right: 1 B I T of memory!)</p><p>Those were the days. And you tell the kids these stories and they won't believe you... </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.You lucky bastard.My parents could never afford such computer .
I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memory ( Yes that 's right : 1 B I T of memory !
) Those were the days .
And you tell the kids these stories and they wo n't believe you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.You lucky bastard.My parents could never afford such computer.
I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memory (Yes that's right: 1 B I T of memory!
)Those were the days.
And you tell the kids these stories and they won't believe you... 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31520462</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Kashgarinn</author>
	<datestamp>1268910780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memory</p></div></blockquote><p>You lucky, lucky bastard..</p><p>I had to learn on a computer with N O Memory, instead it had a rotating sawblade you had to etch your bits into, while moving!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memoryYou lucky , lucky bastard..I had to learn on a computer with N O Memory , instead it had a rotating sawblade you had to etch your bits into , while moving !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memoryYou lucky, lucky bastard..I had to learn on a computer with N O Memory, instead it had a rotating sawblade you had to etch your bits into, while moving!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508152</id>
	<title>!baremetal</title>
	<author>jjohn</author>
	<datestamp>1268839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the days of programming bare-metal on DOS"</p><p>If you're using DOS, that's not baremetal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the days of programming bare-metal on DOS " If you 're using DOS , that 's not baremetal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the days of programming bare-metal on DOS"If you're using DOS, that's not baremetal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</id>
	<title>Umm, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505102</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, C++ can seriously bloat up a program fast.  Most people don't care because they assume they will only ever be on a fast desktop with tons of RAM.  Just the simplest of iostream usage starts pulling in lots of unused code.  To trim it out you have to start adding stub functions to prune references to junk you don't need.  You can also just use your own stream class instead of dealing with iostream (at least that still has some object oriented vestiges left, unlike STL).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , C + + can seriously bloat up a program fast .
Most people do n't care because they assume they will only ever be on a fast desktop with tons of RAM .
Just the simplest of iostream usage starts pulling in lots of unused code .
To trim it out you have to start adding stub functions to prune references to junk you do n't need .
You can also just use your own stream class instead of dealing with iostream ( at least that still has some object oriented vestiges left , unlike STL ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, C++ can seriously bloat up a program fast.
Most people don't care because they assume they will only ever be on a fast desktop with tons of RAM.
Just the simplest of iostream usage starts pulling in lots of unused code.
To trim it out you have to start adding stub functions to prune references to junk you don't need.
You can also just use your own stream class instead of dealing with iostream (at least that still has some object oriented vestiges left, unlike STL).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1268752500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The muppetlabs link ends with the entire program overlapped into the ELF header, and part of the header left off.</p><p>(It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS, but he gets it down to 45 bytes.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The muppetlabs link ends with the entire program overlapped into the ELF header , and part of the header left off .
( It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS , but he gets it down to 45 bytes .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The muppetlabs link ends with the entire program overlapped into the ELF header, and part of the header left off.
(It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS, but he gets it down to 45 bytes.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507046</id>
	<title>Simpler?</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1268832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is definitely a smaller program, but I wouldn't characterize overlapping functionality with header address space in assembley "simpler."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is definitely a smaller program , but I would n't characterize overlapping functionality with header address space in assembley " simpler .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is definitely a smaller program, but I wouldn't characterize overlapping functionality with header address space in assembley "simpler.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504284</id>
	<title>YES!!!! FINALLY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank God we have finally crossed this hurdle.  The baffling complexity of helloworld.c is no longer an obstacle to world domination.  </p><p>I think we can now finally say once and for all that 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank God we have finally crossed this hurdle .
The baffling complexity of helloworld.c is no longer an obstacle to world domination .
I think we can now finally say once and for all that 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank God we have finally crossed this hurdle.
The baffling complexity of helloworld.c is no longer an obstacle to world domination.
I think we can now finally say once and for all that 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504280</id>
	<title>One of the first things I did</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1268753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I got my first C compiler...in 1981</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I got my first C compiler...in 1981</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I got my first C compiler...in 1981</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505180</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1268764740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup me too, on the PDP-8 in 1971. *sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup me too , on the PDP-8 in 1971 .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup me too, on the PDP-8 in 1971.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504146</id>
	<title>If it's so simple,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why doesn't it fit in TFS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't it fit in TFS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't it fit in TFS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508434</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1268840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any C code anywhere.  I think you missed the point.  Try getting anywhere near that small with a compiler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any C code anywhere .
I think you missed the point .
Try getting anywhere near that small with a compiler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any C code anywhere.
I think you missed the point.
Try getting anywhere near that small with a compiler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.<br>(Yes, that's right, 256 B Y T E S of memory.... one quarter k of ram... less than your digital wristwatch probably has... )</p><p>The point is the program has bloat that can be eliminated.<br>You might not have to worry about it, but then again...<br>Besides, keeping the knowledge of creating bare metal code is important and still very useful for a number of devices or situations, just not with most your PC desktop apps.</p><p>Ah the old days, when I was young enough and bored enough to write relative addressed machine code for fun. (Couldn't afford the damned assembler back then.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory .
( Yes , that 's right , 256 B Y T E S of memory.... one quarter k of ram... less than your digital wristwatch probably has... ) The point is the program has bloat that can be eliminated.You might not have to worry about it , but then again...Besides , keeping the knowledge of creating bare metal code is important and still very useful for a number of devices or situations , just not with most your PC desktop apps.Ah the old days , when I was young enough and bored enough to write relative addressed machine code for fun .
( Could n't afford the damned assembler back then .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.
(Yes, that's right, 256 B Y T E S of memory.... one quarter k of ram... less than your digital wristwatch probably has... )The point is the program has bloat that can be eliminated.You might not have to worry about it, but then again...Besides, keeping the knowledge of creating bare metal code is important and still very useful for a number of devices or situations, just not with most your PC desktop apps.Ah the old days, when I was young enough and bored enough to write relative addressed machine code for fun.
(Couldn't afford the damned assembler back then.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504416</id>
	<title>Re:Simpler "Hello World" in C?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no such language as assembler GOD DAMN IT! Do you idiots call C "compiler"? No? Good! Now STOP IT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such language as assembler GOD DAMN IT !
Do you idiots call C " compiler " ?
No ? Good !
Now STOP IT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such language as assembler GOD DAMN IT!
Do you idiots call C "compiler"?
No? Good!
Now STOP IT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268769480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS, but he gets it down to 45 bytes.</p></div><p>Since computer science tends to be such a male dominated field, I think it's worth pointing out that the author <a href="http://web.mit.edu/jesstess/www/" title="mit.edu">is a woman</a> [mit.edu].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS , but he gets it down to 45 bytes.Since computer science tends to be such a male dominated field , I think it 's worth pointing out that the author is a woman [ mit.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS, but he gets it down to 45 bytes.Since computer science tends to be such a male dominated field, I think it's worth pointing out that the author is a woman [mit.edu].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505628</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Two9A</author>
	<datestamp>1268816640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds very similar to what I did back in 2006, on the Nintendo DS. I tried to put together the smallest DS ROM that could actually do something (in this case, turn the screen red):</p><p><a href="http://imrannazar.com/The-Smallest-NDS-File" title="imrannazar.com" rel="nofollow">http://imrannazar.com/The-Smallest-NDS-File</a> [imrannazar.com]</p><p>I ended up embedding the code in the NDS header, which is 352 bytes long; I don't think it's possible to get a DS ROM smaller than that, but I'd be willing to be proved wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds very similar to what I did back in 2006 , on the Nintendo DS .
I tried to put together the smallest DS ROM that could actually do something ( in this case , turn the screen red ) : http : //imrannazar.com/The-Smallest-NDS-File [ imrannazar.com ] I ended up embedding the code in the NDS header , which is 352 bytes long ; I do n't think it 's possible to get a DS ROM smaller than that , but I 'd be willing to be proved wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds very similar to what I did back in 2006, on the Nintendo DS.
I tried to put together the smallest DS ROM that could actually do something (in this case, turn the screen red):http://imrannazar.com/The-Smallest-NDS-File [imrannazar.com]I ended up embedding the code in the NDS header, which is 352 bytes long; I don't think it's possible to get a DS ROM smaller than that, but I'd be willing to be proved wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504730</id>
	<title>Simpler Hello World?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were her teacher I would triple her home work for wasting time like this. I would also administer reciting ELF32 and ELF64 specs and always writing her own linker map file from scratch every time she had to run a C/C++ program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were her teacher I would triple her home work for wasting time like this .
I would also administer reciting ELF32 and ELF64 specs and always writing her own linker map file from scratch every time she had to run a C/C + + program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were her teacher I would triple her home work for wasting time like this.
I would also administer reciting ELF32 and ELF64 specs and always writing her own linker map file from scratch every time she had to run a C/C++ program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506356</id>
	<title>Re:IEFBR14</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268825520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that's why my coworkers call me IEFBR14.  I'm kicking asses when they get here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why my coworkers call me IEFBR14 .
I 'm kicking asses when they get here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why my coworkers call me IEFBR14.
I'm kicking asses when they get here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509668</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in Autoit, a hello world looks something like this:</p><p>msgbox(0,"","Hello World!")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in Autoit , a hello world looks something like this : msgbox ( 0 , " " , " Hello World !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Autoit, a hello world looks something like this:msgbox(0,"","Hello World!
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505296</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268766840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Atari 2600 console has 128 bytes of memory.
(Yes, that's right, 128 B Y T E S of memory.... one eighth k of ram... exactly H A L F the memory of the machine the parent used to program on... )</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Atari 2600 console has 128 bytes of memory .
( Yes , that 's right , 128 B Y T E S of memory.... one eighth k of ram... exactly H A L F the memory of the machine the parent used to program on... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Atari 2600 console has 128 bytes of memory.
(Yes, that's right, 128 B Y T E S of memory.... one eighth k of ram... exactly H A L F the memory of the machine the parent used to program on... )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506066</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>HBI</author>
	<datestamp>1268822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to use a 2-byte value or skip every other byte, as every other one is a screen attribute value.</p><p>Otherwise, you're right.</p><p>For MGA or Herc you'd use B000:0000 as your start segment, all others B800:0000, as you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to use a 2-byte value or skip every other byte , as every other one is a screen attribute value.Otherwise , you 're right.For MGA or Herc you 'd use B000 : 0000 as your start segment , all others B800 : 0000 , as you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to use a 2-byte value or skip every other byte, as every other one is a screen attribute value.Otherwise, you're right.For MGA or Herc you'd use B000:0000 as your start segment, all others B800:0000, as you did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505190</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>SickLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The second link is. The third link isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second link is .
The third link is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second link is.
The third link isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505444</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So she's hot, nerdy enough to write articles about writing smaller C programs, AND she's a deranged sex freak?  I can see why you're upset you never got with her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So she 's hot , nerdy enough to write articles about writing smaller C programs , AND she 's a deranged sex freak ?
I can see why you 're upset you never got with her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she's hot, nerdy enough to write articles about writing smaller C programs, AND she's a deranged sex freak?
I can see why you're upset you never got with her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504310</id>
	<title>In other conspiracy news...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1268754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the Hello World program rewritten, scores of publishers will be updating their programming books and charging more $$$ for their new door stoppers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Hello World program rewritten , scores of publishers will be updating their programming books and charging more $ $ $ for their new door stoppers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Hello World program rewritten, scores of publishers will be updating their programming books and charging more $$$ for their new door stoppers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508540</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>berashith</author>
	<datestamp>1268840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, closer to the metal. I load everything to ram to keep it closer to the metal. the performance hit from the spinning magnets not being directly next to the processor is amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , closer to the metal .
I load everything to ram to keep it closer to the metal .
the performance hit from the spinning magnets not being directly next to the processor is amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, closer to the metal.
I load everything to ram to keep it closer to the metal.
the performance hit from the spinning magnets not being directly next to the processor is amazing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505870</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1268820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that this is a repost of a <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/19/1233250" title="slashdot.org">2002 slashdot article</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that this is a repost of a 2002 slashdot article [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that this is a repost of a 2002 slashdot article [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504674</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>Short Circuit</author>
	<datestamp>1268757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now the average Slashdotter might know what the "bloat" you're talking about is for: Making it so that the programmer doesn't require as much in-depth knowledge of his platform, or have to do as much of the mundane work himself.</p><p>(At least, the average article-reading Slashdotter. Needed to clarify that before someone else points out the joke...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the average Slashdotter might know what the " bloat " you 're talking about is for : Making it so that the programmer does n't require as much in-depth knowledge of his platform , or have to do as much of the mundane work himself .
( At least , the average article-reading Slashdotter .
Needed to clarify that before someone else points out the joke... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the average Slashdotter might know what the "bloat" you're talking about is for: Making it so that the programmer doesn't require as much in-depth knowledge of his platform, or have to do as much of the mundane work himself.
(At least, the average article-reading Slashdotter.
Needed to clarify that before someone else points out the joke...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504334</id>
	<title>any torrent links?</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1268754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Waiting for someone to crack this new hello world code and post it on bittorrent. Any links appreciated.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waiting for someone to crack this new hello world code and post it on bittorrent .
Any links appreciated .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waiting for someone to crack this new hello world code and post it on bittorrent.
Any links appreciated.
Seth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505052</id>
	<title>Dupes.</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1268762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember this from years back.  Do the editors not have a sense of history?
<br>
<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/19/1233250" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/19/1233250</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember this from years back .
Do the editors not have a sense of history ?
http : //linux.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 02/10/19/1233250 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember this from years back.
Do the editors not have a sense of history?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/19/1233250 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding a static 11k or so is insignificant for any program which actually does anything useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding a static 11k or so is insignificant for any program which actually does anything useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding a static 11k or so is insignificant for any program which actually does anything useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504602</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268757120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All this has happened before , and all this will happen again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507050</id>
	<title>I now program in Java</title>
	<author>croftj</author>
	<datestamp>1268832840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to ask questions about how much memory your program uses, you can't afford it.</p><p>In Java, the simplicity is that you write code (preferably something abstracting someone elses code) and don't let little things like memory and performance bother you.</p><p>Now back to reality, it's interesting as an experiment, but in all practicle purposes for what? If you are running on an OS such as linux or windows, use the services they offer you. Why invent the wheel? Certainly, why write in assembly code? Now if you are running on a AVR or the like (yes, I do that) I can see why some would go and use assembly, but still, even then I use C/C++ It's amazing what you can stuff into 32K of flash and 2K of ram</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to ask questions about how much memory your program uses , you ca n't afford it.In Java , the simplicity is that you write code ( preferably something abstracting someone elses code ) and do n't let little things like memory and performance bother you.Now back to reality , it 's interesting as an experiment , but in all practicle purposes for what ?
If you are running on an OS such as linux or windows , use the services they offer you .
Why invent the wheel ?
Certainly , why write in assembly code ?
Now if you are running on a AVR or the like ( yes , I do that ) I can see why some would go and use assembly , but still , even then I use C/C + + It 's amazing what you can stuff into 32K of flash and 2K of ram</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to ask questions about how much memory your program uses, you can't afford it.In Java, the simplicity is that you write code (preferably something abstracting someone elses code) and don't let little things like memory and performance bother you.Now back to reality, it's interesting as an experiment, but in all practicle purposes for what?
If you are running on an OS such as linux or windows, use the services they offer you.
Why invent the wheel?
Certainly, why write in assembly code?
Now if you are running on a AVR or the like (yes, I do that) I can see why some would go and use assembly, but still, even then I use C/C++ It's amazing what you can stuff into 32K of flash and 2K of ram</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504490</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1268755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?</p><p>I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code.  I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++.  Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced.  The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler <em>wanted</em> to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.</p></div><p> <tt>&lt;iostream&gt;</tt> includes references to global stream <em>objects</em> like <tt>std::cout</tt>, not just interface definitions, so including it's going to have larger ramifications that something like <tt>&lt;fstream&gt;</tt>, which just defines interfaces (and indeed, for me, including <tt>&lt;fstream&gt;</tt> seems to have no effect on program size, whereas including <tt>&lt;iostream&gt;</tt> adds about 300 bytes to a simple executable).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the linker remove unreferenced functions ? I 've had this problem with gcc for a while , with C + + code .
I was writing some embedded code , and I wanted to use some simple C + + .
Just by adding a # include of one of the stream libraries .
the executable grew by 200k , even though none of it was referenced .
The C + + code in iostream is template-generated anyway , so even if the compiler wanted to include the code , it ca n't until I instantiate it .
includes references to global stream objects like std : : cout , not just interface definitions , so including it 's going to have larger ramifications that something like , which just defines interfaces ( and indeed , for me , including seems to have no effect on program size , whereas including adds about 300 bytes to a simple executable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code.
I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++.
Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries.
the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced.
The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.
includes references to global stream objects like std::cout, not just interface definitions, so including it's going to have larger ramifications that something like , which just defines interfaces (and indeed, for me, including  seems to have no effect on program size, whereas including  adds about 300 bytes to a simple executable).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504150</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>exasperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As to the point of this... we recently had a story about how computers had gotten "too big to understand".</p><p>And here we have a program, 45 bytes long, for which every single byte has a well-explained purpose.  It's getting back to the bare metal and that's what makes it interesting. =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As to the point of this... we recently had a story about how computers had gotten " too big to understand " .And here we have a program , 45 bytes long , for which every single byte has a well-explained purpose .
It 's getting back to the bare metal and that 's what makes it interesting .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to the point of this... we recently had a story about how computers had gotten "too big to understand".And here we have a program, 45 bytes long, for which every single byte has a well-explained purpose.
It's getting back to the bare metal and that's what makes it interesting.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506278</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!' part of a hello world program.</p></div><p>I suspect that this is the subject of the 'to be continued' article next week.<br>
Yes I was a bit disappointed, but I eagerly await the "what will happen next" conclusion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World !
' part of a hello world program.I suspect that this is the subject of the 'to be continued ' article next week .
Yes I was a bit disappointed , but I eagerly await the " what will happen next " conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!
' part of a hello world program.I suspect that this is the subject of the 'to be continued' article next week.
Yes I was a bit disappointed, but I eagerly await the "what will happen next" conclusion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504104</id>
	<title>Where's the I/O?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it wasn't her fault, but the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary promised our little greeting.  I expected a trip down memory lane to the old "DOS" interrupt INT 21H.  But not even.</p><p>FAIL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it was n't her fault , but the / .
summary promised our little greeting .
I expected a trip down memory lane to the old " DOS " interrupt INT 21H .
But not even.FAIL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it wasn't her fault, but the /.
summary promised our little greeting.
I expected a trip down memory lane to the old "DOS" interrupt INT 21H.
But not even.FAIL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504266</id>
	<title>CDC</title>
	<author>Sanat</author>
	<datestamp>1268753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in 1970 I was programming in assembler on the CDC mainframes (3200 &amp; 3300) in the Compass assembler language. Also it was not unusual to drop into machine code and code directly from the console and then save your program in machine code either to the printer or to the disk driver.</p><p>Now that was hands on... and I still miss it... sigh.</p><p>Also I programmed in Fortran and COBOL as higher languages.... but nothing like the power of assembler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 1970 I was programming in assembler on the CDC mainframes ( 3200 &amp; 3300 ) in the Compass assembler language .
Also it was not unusual to drop into machine code and code directly from the console and then save your program in machine code either to the printer or to the disk driver.Now that was hands on... and I still miss it... sigh.Also I programmed in Fortran and COBOL as higher languages.... but nothing like the power of assembler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 1970 I was programming in assembler on the CDC mainframes (3200 &amp; 3300) in the Compass assembler language.
Also it was not unusual to drop into machine code and code directly from the console and then save your program in machine code either to the printer or to the disk driver.Now that was hands on... and I still miss it... sigh.Also I programmed in Fortran and COBOL as higher languages.... but nothing like the power of assembler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506250</id>
	<title>The point of hello world is to print hello world</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1268824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So she got rid of the stdlib library, but the
program no longer actually prints "hello world"
(or do anything for that matter, except exiting).<br> <br>
Although it's interesting to see how to get rid
of 11k of bloat, the program doesn't actually *do*
anything anymore... so I suppose the code is still bloated, as at this point it should be possible to optimize away
<br> <br>
char *str = "Hello World";<br> <br>

as well.
<br> <br>
I suppose if she wanted to actually print anything again, she'd roll her own printf function? Great for educational purposes, and it's a good thing that was the intention. Because in any production environment, it's most likely not worth it to spend this much effort on 11kB of bloat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So she got rid of the stdlib library , but the program no longer actually prints " hello world " ( or do anything for that matter , except exiting ) .
Although it 's interesting to see how to get rid of 11k of bloat , the program does n't actually * do * anything anymore... so I suppose the code is still bloated , as at this point it should be possible to optimize away char * str = " Hello World " ; as well .
I suppose if she wanted to actually print anything again , she 'd roll her own printf function ?
Great for educational purposes , and it 's a good thing that was the intention .
Because in any production environment , it 's most likely not worth it to spend this much effort on 11kB of bloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she got rid of the stdlib library, but the
program no longer actually prints "hello world"
(or do anything for that matter, except exiting).
Although it's interesting to see how to get rid
of 11k of bloat, the program doesn't actually *do*
anything anymore... so I suppose the code is still bloated, as at this point it should be possible to optimize away
 
char *str = "Hello World"; 

as well.
I suppose if she wanted to actually print anything again, she'd roll her own printf function?
Great for educational purposes, and it's a good thing that was the intention.
Because in any production environment, it's most likely not worth it to spend this much effort on 11kB of bloat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505642</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1268816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to save that precious memory \o/</p><p>char *addr=0xB8000000;
while(*addr++=argv[0]++);</p><p>\% gcc -o "Hello, world!"<br>
\% "Hello, world!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to save that precious memory \ o/char * addr = 0xB8000000 ; while ( * addr + + = argv [ 0 ] + + ) ; \ % gcc -o " Hello , world !
" \ % " Hello , world !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to save that precious memory \o/char *addr=0xB8000000;
while(*addr++=argv[0]++);\% gcc -o "Hello, world!
"
\% "Hello, world!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505108</id>
	<title>A dupe?</title>
	<author>DollyTheSheep</author>
	<datestamp>1268763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did not read TFA, but some years ago there was astory about the smallest possible ELF program, which sounded very similar or the same as the summary of TFA: a tiny program, that doesn't output anything, but doesn't need any libraries either nor does make any sxstem calls. So, it's probably a dupe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did not read TFA , but some years ago there was astory about the smallest possible ELF program , which sounded very similar or the same as the summary of TFA : a tiny program , that does n't output anything , but does n't need any libraries either nor does make any sxstem calls .
So , it 's probably a dupe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did not read TFA, but some years ago there was astory about the smallest possible ELF program, which sounded very similar or the same as the summary of TFA: a tiny program, that doesn't output anything, but doesn't need any libraries either nor does make any sxstem calls.
So, it's probably a dupe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506804</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268830800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.</i></p><p>The fact that people still use oldschool Algol/Simula-style languages instead of fully reflective languages like Lisp and Smalltalk has been shocking me since the '70s... so get used to being shocked. People just can't let go of these high level assemblers like Java and C#.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.The fact that people still use oldschool Algol/Simula-style languages instead of fully reflective languages like Lisp and Smalltalk has been shocking me since the '70s... so get used to being shocked .
People just ca n't let go of these high level assemblers like Java and C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.The fact that people still use oldschool Algol/Simula-style languages instead of fully reflective languages like Lisp and Smalltalk has been shocking me since the '70s... so get used to being shocked.
People just can't let go of these high level assemblers like Java and C#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523610</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1268931000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patronizing? What are you talking about? I was correcting the poster who indicated her gender as being male. Quite the reverse of your misinterpretation of my point, I was lending credence to the oft-ignored fact that there are some brilliant women in computer science. I considered her article one of the best things I've read in years, regardless of gender. What are you smoking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patronizing ?
What are you talking about ?
I was correcting the poster who indicated her gender as being male .
Quite the reverse of your misinterpretation of my point , I was lending credence to the oft-ignored fact that there are some brilliant women in computer science .
I considered her article one of the best things I 've read in years , regardless of gender .
What are you smoking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patronizing?
What are you talking about?
I was correcting the poster who indicated her gender as being male.
Quite the reverse of your misinterpretation of my point, I was lending credence to the oft-ignored fact that there are some brilliant women in computer science.
I considered her article one of the best things I've read in years, regardless of gender.
What are you smoking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510864</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1268849160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Now you've got me wondering how many people don't really know what their compiler does under the hood<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... darn! Oh well, here's a few places to start digging (it's interesting if you stick with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).</p><blockquote><div><p>Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from? That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You may have noticed that the man page for STDOUT (man 3 STDOUT) states:</p><blockquote><div><p>Under normal circumstances every Unix program has three streams opened for it when it starts up, one for input, one for output, and one for printing diagnostic or error messages.  These are typically attached to the user's terminal (see tty(4) but might instead refer to files or other devices, depending on what the parent process chose to set up.  (See also the "Redirection" section of sh(1).)</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and from this we can deduce that, since there were open for you <b>before</b> your call to main() ever gets executed, that there's startup code in there somewhere to open stdin, stdout, stderr, and tie them to 3 file descriptors. In fact, several dead-tree manuals point this out - that the startup code initializes these for you before your code executes.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or man 3p stdin</p><blockquote><div><p>At program start-up, three streams shall be predefined and need not be opened explicitly: standard input (for reading conventional input), standard output
       (for  writing  conventional output), and standard error (for writing diagnostic output).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Also, there's additional information with man 3 atexit, that indicates that there's cleanup code that has to be executed <b>after</b> your call to exit - this cleanup code has to come from somewhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
And then there's wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C\_standard\_library" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C\_standard\_library</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p> The run-time support provides not only the C standard library functions, but possibly other material needed to create an environment for the C program, such as initialization prior to the invocation of the main function,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is stuff like initializing argc, argv, and env so that your program can use them.
</p><p>
Also mentioned in dead-tree compiler manuals. Or, for example, C Reference Manual, 1991, Harbison, Samuel P and Steel, Guy L, Ch 20 (p358) - 20.1 MAIN.  Also, Ch. 15 (page 304) 15.4 STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR - The external variables stdin, stdout, and stderr are initialized prior to the start of an application program to certain standard text streams.
</p><p>
Playing around with an assembler would also help, but isn't required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 've got me wondering how many people do n't really know what their compiler does under the hood ... darn ! Oh well , here 's a few places to start digging ( it 's interesting if you stick with it : - ) .Okay , and where am I supposed to learn it from ?
That was new to me , after using gcc for a very long time .
You may have noticed that the man page for STDOUT ( man 3 STDOUT ) states : Under normal circumstances every Unix program has three streams opened for it when it starts up , one for input , one for output , and one for printing diagnostic or error messages .
These are typically attached to the user 's terminal ( see tty ( 4 ) but might instead refer to files or other devices , depending on what the parent process chose to set up .
( See also the " Redirection " section of sh ( 1 ) .
) ... and from this we can deduce that , since there were open for you before your call to main ( ) ever gets executed , that there 's startup code in there somewhere to open stdin , stdout , stderr , and tie them to 3 file descriptors .
In fact , several dead-tree manuals point this out - that the startup code initializes these for you before your code executes .
... or man 3p stdinAt program start-up , three streams shall be predefined and need not be opened explicitly : standard input ( for reading conventional input ) , standard output ( for writing conventional output ) , and standard error ( for writing diagnostic output ) .
Also , there 's additional information with man 3 atexit , that indicates that there 's cleanup code that has to be executed after your call to exit - this cleanup code has to come from somewhere .. . And then there 's wikipedia : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C \ _standard \ _library [ wikipedia.org ] The run-time support provides not only the C standard library functions , but possibly other material needed to create an environment for the C program , such as initialization prior to the invocation of the main function , This is stuff like initializing argc , argv , and env so that your program can use them .
Also mentioned in dead-tree compiler manuals .
Or , for example , C Reference Manual , 1991 , Harbison , Samuel P and Steel , Guy L , Ch 20 ( p358 ) - 20.1 MAIN .
Also , Ch .
15 ( page 304 ) 15.4 STDIN , STDOUT , STDERR - The external variables stdin , stdout , and stderr are initialized prior to the start of an application program to certain standard text streams .
Playing around with an assembler would also help , but is n't required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Now you've got me wondering how many people don't really know what their compiler does under the hood ... darn! Oh well, here's a few places to start digging (it's interesting if you stick with it :-).Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from?
That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.
You may have noticed that the man page for STDOUT (man 3 STDOUT) states:Under normal circumstances every Unix program has three streams opened for it when it starts up, one for input, one for output, and one for printing diagnostic or error messages.
These are typically attached to the user's terminal (see tty(4) but might instead refer to files or other devices, depending on what the parent process chose to set up.
(See also the "Redirection" section of sh(1).
)
 ... and from this we can deduce that, since there were open for you before your call to main() ever gets executed, that there's startup code in there somewhere to open stdin, stdout, stderr, and tie them to 3 file descriptors.
In fact, several dead-tree manuals point this out - that the startup code initializes these for you before your code executes.
... or man 3p stdinAt program start-up, three streams shall be predefined and need not be opened explicitly: standard input (for reading conventional input), standard output
       (for  writing  conventional output), and standard error (for writing diagnostic output).
Also, there's additional information with man 3 atexit, that indicates that there's cleanup code that has to be executed after your call to exit - this cleanup code has to come from somewhere ...

And then there's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C\_standard\_library [wikipedia.org]  The run-time support provides not only the C standard library functions, but possibly other material needed to create an environment for the C program, such as initialization prior to the invocation of the main function,

This is stuff like initializing argc, argv, and env so that your program can use them.
Also mentioned in dead-tree compiler manuals.
Or, for example, C Reference Manual, 1991, Harbison, Samuel P and Steel, Guy L, Ch 20 (p358) - 20.1 MAIN.
Also, Ch.
15 (page 304) 15.4 STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR - The external variables stdin, stdout, and stderr are initialized prior to the start of an application program to certain standard text streams.
Playing around with an assembler would also help, but isn't required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504352</id>
	<title>Ob. quote</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1268754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's been an awful lot of discussion about what is or isn't simple,<br>and people have gotten a pretty sophisticated notion of simplicity, but<br>I'm not sure it has helped.<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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- Ward Cunningham</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been an awful lot of discussion about what is or is n't simple,and people have gotten a pretty sophisticated notion of simplicity , butI 'm not sure it has helped .
                                                          -- Ward Cunningham</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's been an awful lot of discussion about what is or isn't simple,and people have gotten a pretty sophisticated notion of simplicity, butI'm not sure it has helped.
                                                          -- Ward Cunningham</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31522578</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it.  Step one, don't write it in C.  Step two, stop linking to things that aren't needed.  Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.  Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.</p><p>Step 4: Profit ???</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it .
Step one , do n't write it in C. Step two , stop linking to things that are n't needed .
Step three , perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually .
Step five , start cheating in the elf binary format.Step 4 : Profit ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it.
Step one, don't write it in C.  Step two, stop linking to things that aren't needed.
Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.
Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.Step 4: Profit ??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509478</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>bigrockpeltr</author>
	<datestamp>1268844900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as i know the linker wouldn't (but i dont follow "compiler" advancements so I could be wrong). That's why u can do 'using namespace std;' or 'using std::cout' to only include those "functions".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as i know the linker would n't ( but i dont follow " compiler " advancements so I could be wrong ) .
That 's why u can do 'using namespace std ; ' or 'using std : : cout ' to only include those " functions " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as i know the linker wouldn't (but i dont follow "compiler" advancements so I could be wrong).
That's why u can do 'using namespace std;' or 'using std::cout' to only include those "functions".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513852</id>
	<title>Big letdown, was hoping for shorter Hello World</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1268858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was a big letdown finding out this wasn't the final optimization to Hello World, transforming it from a junky affair of #include and printf (or puts) into a highly-refined program of half the source text. The headline really had me rekindling my youthful yearning for a smaller Hello World. I am so let down right now. I'm calling a friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a big letdown finding out this was n't the final optimization to Hello World , transforming it from a junky affair of # include and printf ( or puts ) into a highly-refined program of half the source text .
The headline really had me rekindling my youthful yearning for a smaller Hello World .
I am so let down right now .
I 'm calling a friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a big letdown finding out this wasn't the final optimization to Hello World, transforming it from a junky affair of #include and printf (or puts) into a highly-refined program of half the source text.
The headline really had me rekindling my youthful yearning for a smaller Hello World.
I am so let down right now.
I'm calling a friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504976</id>
	<title>GNU Hello World</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1268761500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always enjoyed the GNU Hello World packages in C and C++.  They seem too large for their purpose, but I supposed they were trying to test something under the surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always enjoyed the GNU Hello World packages in C and C + + .
They seem too large for their purpose , but I supposed they were trying to test something under the surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always enjoyed the GNU Hello World packages in C and C++.
They seem too large for their purpose, but I supposed they were trying to test something under the surface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505080</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>she definitely not a looker. could probably stand to lose a few pounds also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>she definitely not a looker .
could probably stand to lose a few pounds also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>she definitely not a looker.
could probably stand to lose a few pounds also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504746</id>
	<title>Come on, really?</title>
	<author>ld a,b</author>
	<datestamp>1268758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took me a weekend a few months ago to write a "Hello world+cat+string manipulation+malloc+free+argv+envp" program for amd64 that worked on Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD with the same exact binary and no emulation using mostly C code and about a dozen lines of assembly.<br>It later degraded into a posix cross-platform mini-c and objective-c 2.0 runtime library, but you can do far more amazing things than calling the exit(2) syscall in an obsolete architecture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a weekend a few months ago to write a " Hello world + cat + string manipulation + malloc + free + argv + envp " program for amd64 that worked on Linux , OpenBSD and FreeBSD with the same exact binary and no emulation using mostly C code and about a dozen lines of assembly.It later degraded into a posix cross-platform mini-c and objective-c 2.0 runtime library , but you can do far more amazing things than calling the exit ( 2 ) syscall in an obsolete architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a weekend a few months ago to write a "Hello world+cat+string manipulation+malloc+free+argv+envp" program for amd64 that worked on Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD with the same exact binary and no emulation using mostly C code and about a dozen lines of assembly.It later degraded into a posix cross-platform mini-c and objective-c 2.0 runtime library, but you can do far more amazing things than calling the exit(2) syscall in an obsolete architecture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>cthugha</author>
	<datestamp>1268762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question, it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program, including the string "Hello World!".</p><p>The method for extracting the particular output desired is left as an exercise for the reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question , it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program , including the string " Hello World !
" .The method for extracting the particular output desired is left as an exercise for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question, it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program, including the string "Hello World!
".The method for extracting the particular output desired is left as an exercise for the reader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506148</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>kevingolding2001</author>
	<datestamp>1268823060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*sigh*<br> <br>Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.</p></div><p>And did you write up a nice article for other people to learn from what you had done?
</p><p>
I think the real value here is not that she did this, but that she wrote it up in a nice easy to read way so that you can follow her train of thought and get a feel for how one goes about tinkering with compilers and such.
</p><p>
This adds value for people like me who are not as smart as you. I could never have done this on a PDP-11 (although I did have access to one back in my days at university). I also previously would not have know enough to do this in Linux. But having read this article I feel I have learnt something and have a new insight into how linkers and libraries work. Who knows, maybe I will be able to do something similar myself after this learning experience, and for that I am grateful to Jessica for doing it, writing about it and (I'm guessing it was her) submitting it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.
</p><p>
Now I shall respectfully step off your lawn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* sigh * Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.And did you write up a nice article for other people to learn from what you had done ?
I think the real value here is not that she did this , but that she wrote it up in a nice easy to read way so that you can follow her train of thought and get a feel for how one goes about tinkering with compilers and such .
This adds value for people like me who are not as smart as you .
I could never have done this on a PDP-11 ( although I did have access to one back in my days at university ) .
I also previously would not have know enough to do this in Linux .
But having read this article I feel I have learnt something and have a new insight into how linkers and libraries work .
Who knows , maybe I will be able to do something similar myself after this learning experience , and for that I am grateful to Jessica for doing it , writing about it and ( I 'm guessing it was her ) submitting it to / .
Now I shall respectfully step off your lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*sigh* Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.And did you write up a nice article for other people to learn from what you had done?
I think the real value here is not that she did this, but that she wrote it up in a nice easy to read way so that you can follow her train of thought and get a feel for how one goes about tinkering with compilers and such.
This adds value for people like me who are not as smart as you.
I could never have done this on a PDP-11 (although I did have access to one back in my days at university).
I also previously would not have know enough to do this in Linux.
But having read this article I feel I have learnt something and have a new insight into how linkers and libraries work.
Who knows, maybe I will be able to do something similar myself after this learning experience, and for that I am grateful to Jessica for doing it, writing about it and (I'm guessing it was her) submitting it to /.
Now I shall respectfully step off your lawn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31511572</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. For some context, I've made it a long-time habit not to include glibc on Windows when writing dlls (because of the size and because of conflicts I've experienced). Now if you would write such a hello world on Win32, you'd probably call MessageBox in User32, using that library to do all the heavy lifting. Now, look at the code in the article. Sure, it contains a syscall rather than a normal call, but you can see that it does exactly the same thing. It provides the string and passes it to the function that does the actual work, in effect still using a library provided by the operating system.<br>If you'd want to do a purer hello world, you'd do something with an eeprom, a microcontroller, and a simple controllerless printer. We've done stuff like that (but controlling instruments, not a printer of course) in a physics practicum once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
For some context , I 've made it a long-time habit not to include glibc on Windows when writing dlls ( because of the size and because of conflicts I 've experienced ) .
Now if you would write such a hello world on Win32 , you 'd probably call MessageBox in User32 , using that library to do all the heavy lifting .
Now , look at the code in the article .
Sure , it contains a syscall rather than a normal call , but you can see that it does exactly the same thing .
It provides the string and passes it to the function that does the actual work , in effect still using a library provided by the operating system.If you 'd want to do a purer hello world , you 'd do something with an eeprom , a microcontroller , and a simple controllerless printer .
We 've done stuff like that ( but controlling instruments , not a printer of course ) in a physics practicum once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
For some context, I've made it a long-time habit not to include glibc on Windows when writing dlls (because of the size and because of conflicts I've experienced).
Now if you would write such a hello world on Win32, you'd probably call MessageBox in User32, using that library to do all the heavy lifting.
Now, look at the code in the article.
Sure, it contains a syscall rather than a normal call, but you can see that it does exactly the same thing.
It provides the string and passes it to the function that does the actual work, in effect still using a library provided by the operating system.If you'd want to do a purer hello world, you'd do something with an eeprom, a microcontroller, and a simple controllerless printer.
We've done stuff like that (but controlling instruments, not a printer of course) in a physics practicum once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31592490</id>
	<title>Re:If it's so simple,</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1269354480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if Slashdot *is* News for Nerds, not everyone can read uncommented assembly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if Slashdot * is * News for Nerds , not everyone can read uncommented assembly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if Slashdot *is* News for Nerds, not everyone can read uncommented assembly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31578754</id>
	<title>Re:I now program in Java</title>
	<author>SCVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1269271680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Why invent the wheel?
<br> <br>
I believe the idiom you are looking for is "Why <i>re</i>invent the wheel."
<br> <br>
Off the top of my head I can think of a great number of reasons to <i>invent</i> the wheel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why invent the wheel ?
I believe the idiom you are looking for is " Why reinvent the wheel .
" Off the top of my head I can think of a great number of reasons to invent the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Why invent the wheel?
I believe the idiom you are looking for is "Why reinvent the wheel.
"
 
Off the top of my head I can think of a great number of reasons to invent the wheel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505862</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Setsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get 517K for a static link of a hello world executable. 5.8K for dynamic. That really is super pathetic. (I'm on linux running gcc 4.4.3-3, the static file was stripped)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get 517K for a static link of a hello world executable .
5.8K for dynamic .
That really is super pathetic .
( I 'm on linux running gcc 4.4.3-3 , the static file was stripped )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get 517K for a static link of a hello world executable.
5.8K for dynamic.
That really is super pathetic.
(I'm on linux running gcc 4.4.3-3, the static file was stripped)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506292</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forgot the attribute byte, your output would look like "HloWrd" in fancy colors/blinking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... it will work correctly when you change char *addr to short *addr though</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot the attribute byte , your output would look like " HloWrd " in fancy colors/blinking .... it will work correctly when you change char * addr to short * addr though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot the attribute byte, your output would look like "HloWrd" in fancy colors/blinking .... it will work correctly when you change char *addr to short *addr though</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510124</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268847180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just that, but writing startup &amp; shutdown code in assembly also sidesteps the "C" part of the program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just that , but writing startup &amp; shutdown code in assembly also sidesteps the " C " part of the program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just that, but writing startup &amp; shutdown code in assembly also sidesteps the "C" part of the program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.
</p><p>

 This is <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/quadruple-productivity-with-an-intern-army/" title="ksplice.com">almost as lame as their previous slashvertisement/product\_whoring</a> [ksplice.com] - where they claimed to have gotten around the Mythical Man-Month and quadrupled output - and it turned out that neither claim was true.
</p><p>
And their <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/quadruple-productivity-with-an-intern-army/comment-page-1/#comment-81" title="ksplice.com">lame excuse</a> [ksplice.com], which <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/quadruple-productivity-with-an-intern-army/comment-page-1/#comment-119" title="ksplice.com">I derided in this comment</a> [ksplice.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Greg Price wrote:</p><blockquote><div><p>"what I hoped to get across in this post is that that's not true--in the right circumstances, adding people to a software project can get a lot done, even in a short time"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
As many people have pointed out, you did NOT add people to a software project. You created a dozen small, one-person projects. Your self-serving reply to all that is just one more mis-representation. Have you no shame?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I'm sure we're not the only ones to have used embedded assembler in c programs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She found that gcc was including libc even when you do n't ask for it .
This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main .
This is almost as lame as their previous slashvertisement/product \ _whoring [ ksplice.com ] - where they claimed to have gotten around the Mythical Man-Month and quadrupled output - and it turned out that neither claim was true .
And their lame excuse [ ksplice.com ] , which I derided in this comment [ ksplice.com ] : Greg Price wrote : " what I hoped to get across in this post is that that 's not true--in the right circumstances , adding people to a software project can get a lot done , even in a short time " As many people have pointed out , you did NOT add people to a software project .
You created a dozen small , one-person projects .
Your self-serving reply to all that is just one more mis-representation .
Have you no shame ?
I 'm sure we 're not the only ones to have used embedded assembler in c programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.
This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.
This is almost as lame as their previous slashvertisement/product\_whoring [ksplice.com] - where they claimed to have gotten around the Mythical Man-Month and quadrupled output - and it turned out that neither claim was true.
And their lame excuse [ksplice.com], which I derided in this comment [ksplice.com]:Greg Price wrote:"what I hoped to get across in this post is that that's not true--in the right circumstances, adding people to a software project can get a lot done, even in a short time"

As many people have pointed out, you did NOT add people to a software project.
You created a dozen small, one-person projects.
Your self-serving reply to all that is just one more mis-representation.
Have you no shame?
I'm sure we're not the only ones to have used embedded assembler in c programs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508762</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268841840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's a Dos program not a linux program. How addressing the text mode memory directly (address 0xb800)? Or use the int 10. Then just stick it straight into the boot sector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's a Dos program not a linux program .
How addressing the text mode memory directly ( address 0xb800 ) ?
Or use the int 10 .
Then just stick it straight into the boot sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's a Dos program not a linux program.
How addressing the text mode memory directly (address 0xb800)?
Or use the int 10.
Then just stick it straight into the boot sector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505886</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1268820180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it was dragging the damn extension cord up hill both ways that was the real killer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it was dragging the damn extension cord up hill both ways that was the real killer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it was dragging the damn extension cord up hill both ways that was the real killer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509188</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1268843700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems.</p></div><p>Yeah, those insensitive clods!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems.Yeah , those insensitive clods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But complaining that we unnecessary library code is sometimes included does not really solve any problems.Yeah, those insensitive clods!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505714</id>
	<title>What's the significance of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268817780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not entirely sure I understand the significance of this.<br>
So she shaved a few bytes off of an executable. It takes my 2010 Internet connection roughly 0.003 seconds to download those few bytes.<br>
Also, if I understand correctly she shaved off a more or less fixed number of bytes, not a percentage of the original file size.<br>
In other words, if she performed this trick with a large and complex piece of software that generated a 1Mb executable, she'd still shave off a handful of bytes, no? Is that worth the effort? I get that it's interesting from a hobbyist perspective, but in the real world, it's rather insignificant if you ask me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely sure I understand the significance of this .
So she shaved a few bytes off of an executable .
It takes my 2010 Internet connection roughly 0.003 seconds to download those few bytes .
Also , if I understand correctly she shaved off a more or less fixed number of bytes , not a percentage of the original file size .
In other words , if she performed this trick with a large and complex piece of software that generated a 1Mb executable , she 'd still shave off a handful of bytes , no ?
Is that worth the effort ?
I get that it 's interesting from a hobbyist perspective , but in the real world , it 's rather insignificant if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely sure I understand the significance of this.
So she shaved a few bytes off of an executable.
It takes my 2010 Internet connection roughly 0.003 seconds to download those few bytes.
Also, if I understand correctly she shaved off a more or less fixed number of bytes, not a percentage of the original file size.
In other words, if she performed this trick with a large and complex piece of software that generated a 1Mb executable, she'd still shave off a handful of bytes, no?
Is that worth the effort?
I get that it's interesting from a hobbyist perspective, but in the real world, it's rather insignificant if you ask me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504412</id>
	<title>eYuo Fail It?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">won't be standing Software lawyers may be h0rting share. *BSD is It was fun. If I'm codebase became</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo n't be standing Software lawyers may be h0rting share .
* BSD is It was fun .
If I 'm codebase became [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>won't be standing Software lawyers may be h0rting share.
*BSD is It was fun.
If I'm codebase became [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510438</id>
	<title>Brings back memories of TSR development</title>
	<author>seeks2know</author>
	<datestamp>1268848020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the old days, I recall writing TSR (terminate and stay resident) DOS programs in Assembly language.  The code needed to be very tight to fit into a PC's teeny RAM (64K system total?)  Great learning experience, but the ROI on time invested, unthinkable today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the old days , I recall writing TSR ( terminate and stay resident ) DOS programs in Assembly language .
The code needed to be very tight to fit into a PC 's teeny RAM ( 64K system total ?
) Great learning experience , but the ROI on time invested , unthinkable today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the old days, I recall writing TSR (terminate and stay resident) DOS programs in Assembly language.
The code needed to be very tight to fit into a PC's teeny RAM (64K system total?
)  Great learning experience, but the ROI on time invested, unthinkable today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505068</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>mandelbr0t</author>
	<datestamp>1268762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>mov bx, 0xB000<br>mov es, bx<br>xor di, di<br>mov si, OFFSET msg<br>mov cx, LEN<br>stosb<br> <br>.data<br>msg db 'Hello, World!', 13, 10, $<br>LEN equ 15</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>I wasn't blessed with a color card. And I'm sure that's not actually any real dialect of assembly, but you get the picture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mov bx , 0xB000mov es , bxxor di , dimov si , OFFSET msgmov cx , LENstosb .datamsg db 'Hello , World !
' , 13 , 10 , $ LEN equ 15 I was n't blessed with a color card .
And I 'm sure that 's not actually any real dialect of assembly , but you get the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> mov bx, 0xB000mov es, bxxor di, dimov si, OFFSET msgmov cx, LENstosb .datamsg db 'Hello, World!
', 13, 10, $LEN equ 15 I wasn't blessed with a color card.
And I'm sure that's not actually any real dialect of assembly, but you get the picture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</id>
	<title>Not a C program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it.  Step one, don't write it in C.  Step two, stop linking to things that aren't needed.  Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.  Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.</p><p>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries.  BAD.  Linux kernel people?  Are you reading this?  Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it .
Step one , do n't write it in C. Step two , stop linking to things that are n't needed .
Step three , perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually .
Step five , start cheating in the elf binary format.The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries .
BAD. Linux kernel people ?
Are you reading this ?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it.
Step one, don't write it in C.  Step two, stop linking to things that aren't needed.
Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.
Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries.
BAD.  Linux kernel people?
Are you reading this?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507066</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how sits above him and says, yeah KDawson, that sounds interesting,<br>or is there no such pier review before being posted on slashdot???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how sits above him and says , yeah KDawson , that sounds interesting,or is there no such pier review before being posted on slashdot ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how sits above him and says, yeah KDawson, that sounds interesting,or is there no such pier review before being posted on slashdot??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504436</id>
	<title>The meaning of life, the universe, and everything</title>
	<author>Graham J - XVI</author>
	<datestamp>1268755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in 45 bytes - Impressive!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in 45 bytes - Impressive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in 45 bytes - Impressive!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505158</id>
	<title>MSDOS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268764260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;debug hw.com<br>File not found</p><p>-a<br>13BE:0100 mov ah, e<br>13BE:0102 mov bp, 110<br>13BE:0105 mov al, [bp]<br>13BE:0108 int 10<br>13BE:010A inc bp<br>13BE:010B cmp al, 64<br>13BE:010D jnz 105<br>13BE:010F ret<br>13BE:0110<br>-e110<br>13BE:0110  43.48   4F.65   4D.6c   53.6c   50.6f   45.20   43.57   3D.6f<br>13BE:0118  43.72   3A.6c   5C.64<br>-rcx<br>CX 0000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:1b<br>-w<br>Writing 0001B bytes<br>-q</p><p>C:\DOCUME~1\Steve<br>&gt;hw<br>Hello World<br>C:\DOCUME~1\Steve<br>&gt;dir hw.com<br>
&nbsp; Volume in drive C has no label.<br>
&nbsp; Directory of C:\DOCUME~1\Steve<br>03/16/2010  10:22 PM                27 HW.COM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; debug hw.comFile not found-a13BE : 0100 mov ah , e13BE : 0102 mov bp , 11013BE : 0105 mov al , [ bp ] 13BE : 0108 int 1013BE : 010A inc bp13BE : 010B cmp al , 6413BE : 010D jnz 10513BE : 010F ret13BE : 0110-e11013BE : 0110 43.48 4F.65 4D.6c 53.6c 50.6f 45.20 43.57 3D.6f13BE : 0118 43.72 3A.6c 5C.64-rcxCX 0000 : 1b-wWriting 0001B bytes-qC : \ DOCUME ~ 1 \ Steve &gt; hwHello WorldC : \ DOCUME ~ 1 \ Steve &gt; dir hw.com   Volume in drive C has no label .
  Directory of C : \ DOCUME ~ 1 \ Steve03/16/2010 10 : 22 PM 27 HW.COM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;debug hw.comFile not found-a13BE:0100 mov ah, e13BE:0102 mov bp, 11013BE:0105 mov al, [bp]13BE:0108 int 1013BE:010A inc bp13BE:010B cmp al, 6413BE:010D jnz 10513BE:010F ret13BE:0110-e11013BE:0110  43.48   4F.65   4D.6c   53.6c   50.6f   45.20   43.57   3D.6f13BE:0118  43.72   3A.6c   5C.64-rcxCX 0000 :1b-wWriting 0001B bytes-qC:\DOCUME~1\Steve&gt;hwHello WorldC:\DOCUME~1\Steve&gt;dir hw.com
  Volume in drive C has no label.
  Directory of C:\DOCUME~1\Steve03/16/2010  10:22 PM                27 HW.COM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1268765820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.</p></div><p>I started writing device drivers in Ruby, and have never looked back.</p><p>In order to get Ruby to run on my system, I run it in an interpreter. The interpreter is written in Java, which is a much faster language and therefore more suitable as an interpreter.</p><p>The JVM on my system is written in C#. I know that C# is comparable to Java in terms of efficiency, but since this is a Windows machine, I figure it's "closer to the metal."</p><p>The implementation of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework on my computer (and the Windows operating system itself) is written in Ruby. Since I already have a Ruby interpreter on my system, this presents no problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.I started writing device drivers in Ruby , and have never looked back.In order to get Ruby to run on my system , I run it in an interpreter .
The interpreter is written in Java , which is a much faster language and therefore more suitable as an interpreter.The JVM on my system is written in C # .
I know that C # is comparable to Java in terms of efficiency , but since this is a Windows machine , I figure it 's " closer to the metal .
" The implementation of the .NET framework on my computer ( and the Windows operating system itself ) is written in Ruby .
Since I already have a Ruby interpreter on my system , this presents no problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.I started writing device drivers in Ruby, and have never looked back.In order to get Ruby to run on my system, I run it in an interpreter.
The interpreter is written in Java, which is a much faster language and therefore more suitable as an interpreter.The JVM on my system is written in C#.
I know that C# is comparable to Java in terms of efficiency, but since this is a Windows machine, I figure it's "closer to the metal.
"The implementation of the .NET framework on my computer (and the Windows operating system itself) is written in Ruby.
Since I already have a Ruby interpreter on my system, this presents no problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513748</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1268857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 18 bytes (including newline):

</p><p>echo Hello World!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 18 bytes ( including newline ) : echo Hello World !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 18 bytes (including newline):

echo Hello World!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509674</id>
	<title>100 bytes for Tetris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268845680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a simplified Tetris clone on DOS that took exactly 100 bytes. It ran in text mode, with the drawing ASCII characters (i.e., ANSI-art style).</p><p>tmegapscm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a simplified Tetris clone on DOS that took exactly 100 bytes .
It ran in text mode , with the drawing ASCII characters ( i.e. , ANSI-art style ) .tmegapscm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a simplified Tetris clone on DOS that took exactly 100 bytes.
It ran in text mode, with the drawing ASCII characters (i.e., ANSI-art style).tmegapscm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505838</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>SuperDre</author>
	<datestamp>1268819460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When does something obvious and simple like this become newsworthy for placing on slashdot? This is nothing special or new...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When does something obvious and simple like this become newsworthy for placing on slashdot ?
This is nothing special or new.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When does something obvious and simple like this become newsworthy for placing on slashdot?
This is nothing special or new...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505440</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. I once entered a 256 byte game contest---"implement a game in 256 bytes". It's amazing how much code you can squeeze into 256 bytes if you really try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I once entered a 256 byte game contest--- " implement a game in 256 bytes " .
It 's amazing how much code you can squeeze into 256 bytes if you really try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I once entered a 256 byte game contest---"implement a game in 256 bytes".
It's amazing how much code you can squeeze into 256 bytes if you really try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513540</id>
	<title>Pretty Fat</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1268857080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That initial 11kB is pretty fat. <i>MarcsForth</i>, a bloated version of Forth 83 without any attempt at optimization uses 11.1kB (including the word headers, which is like keeping the whole symbol table in the executable). On the other hand, the reference manual tips the scales at 310kB.</p><p>Just as interesting: it was finished in 1987 and runs without a glitch under Windows XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That initial 11kB is pretty fat .
MarcsForth , a bloated version of Forth 83 without any attempt at optimization uses 11.1kB ( including the word headers , which is like keeping the whole symbol table in the executable ) .
On the other hand , the reference manual tips the scales at 310kB.Just as interesting : it was finished in 1987 and runs without a glitch under Windows XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That initial 11kB is pretty fat.
MarcsForth, a bloated version of Forth 83 without any attempt at optimization uses 11.1kB (including the word headers, which is like keeping the whole symbol table in the executable).
On the other hand, the reference manual tips the scales at 310kB.Just as interesting: it was finished in 1987 and runs without a glitch under Windows XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504660</id>
	<title>Re:Simpler "Hello World" in C?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what part of the program is "simpler", that's what I don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what part of the program is " simpler " , that 's what I do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what part of the program is "simpler", that's what I don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31529402</id>
	<title>Not asking for libc</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1268908740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTS: <em>She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.</em>
</p><p>
Shouldn't come as a surprise. C has a runtime, like most other languages.
-- But really, this was a good article.
Looking under the hood and finding the few things that are there is very instructive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTS : She found that gcc was including libc even when you do n't ask for it .
Should n't come as a surprise .
C has a runtime , like most other languages .
-- But really , this was a good article .
Looking under the hood and finding the few things that are there is very instructive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTS: She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.
Shouldn't come as a surprise.
C has a runtime, like most other languages.
-- But really, this was a good article.
Looking under the hood and finding the few things that are there is very instructive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504910</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a slight exaggeration but I did go to high school with her and I did finger her pussy.  Well, I tried to anyway, ended up fingering her asshole instead.  All I got was a stinky finger (and half a hand job).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a slight exaggeration but I did go to high school with her and I did finger her pussy .
Well , I tried to anyway , ended up fingering her asshole instead .
All I got was a stinky finger ( and half a hand job ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a slight exaggeration but I did go to high school with her and I did finger her pussy.
Well, I tried to anyway, ended up fingering her asshole instead.
All I got was a stinky finger (and half a hand job).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505910</id>
	<title>OLD OLD OLD</title>
	<author>sudog</author>
	<datestamp>1268820360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you post an older webpage to the front page of Slashdot?!</p><p>Geez, this thing has been around for frickin ages..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you post an older webpage to the front page of Slashdot ?
! Geez , this thing has been around for frickin ages. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you post an older webpage to the front page of Slashdot?
!Geez, this thing has been around for frickin ages..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505488</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She could have used a system call to the kernel with only a few more bytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She could have used a system call to the kernel with only a few more bytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She could have used a system call to the kernel with only a few more bytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</id>
	<title>Damn kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries.  It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something like</p><p><tt><br>char*cp="Hello World";<br>char *addr=0xB8000000;<br>while(*addr++ = *cp++);<br></tt></p><p>That's the C version, of course.  You'd actually do it in assembly.  My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the DOS days , any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer , allowing you to display text without any libraries .
It 's been many years , so I am probably getting this wrong , but in psuedocode it 'd look something likechar * cp = " Hello World " ; char * addr = 0xB8000000 ; while ( * addr + + = * cp + + ) ; That 's the C version , of course .
You 'd actually do it in assembly .
My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes , but again , it 's been decades since I 've done anything like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries.
It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something likechar*cp="Hello World";char *addr=0xB8000000;while(*addr++ = *cp++);That's the C version, of course.
You'd actually do it in assembly.
My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507506</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1268836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question, it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program, including the string "Hello World!".</p></div><p>Uh, wouldn't that be the Ultimate Improbability Compiler?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question , it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program , including the string " Hello World !
" .Uh , would n't that be the Ultimate Improbability Compiler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the output is the Answer to the Ultimate Question, it necessarily incorporates or encodes every possible output of every possible program, including the string "Hello World!
".Uh, wouldn't that be the Ultimate Improbability Compiler?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506620</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>rew</author>
	<datestamp>1268829120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article was written in 1999 (note how I have to be exact by including the millennium in the year!), and corrected in '01 and '09.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article was written in 1999 ( note how I have to be exact by including the millennium in the year !
) , and corrected in '01 and '09 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article was written in 1999 (note how I have to be exact by including the millennium in the year!
), and corrected in '01 and '09.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505404</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268769060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, and she misses the perfect size by three bytes.</p><p>But for just 37 bytes more, you can have hello world: <a href="http://pastebin.com/bnR8P2Hs" title="pastebin.com" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/bnR8P2Hs</a> [pastebin.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , and she misses the perfect size by three bytes.But for just 37 bytes more , you can have hello world : http : //pastebin.com/bnR8P2Hs [ pastebin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, and she misses the perfect size by three bytes.But for just 37 bytes more, you can have hello world: http://pastebin.com/bnR8P2Hs [pastebin.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</id>
	<title>C++ is worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?</p><p>I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code.  I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++.  Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced.  The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler <em>wanted</em> to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the linker remove unreferenced functions ? I 've had this problem with gcc for a while , with C + + code .
I was writing some embedded code , and I wanted to use some simple C + + .
Just by adding a # include of one of the stream libraries .
the executable grew by 200k , even though none of it was referenced .
The C + + code in iostream is template-generated anyway , so even if the compiler wanted to include the code , it ca n't until I instantiate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code.
I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++.
Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries.
the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced.
The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518050</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>QuietObserver</author>
	<datestamp>1268837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offense, but how big?  I wrote "Hello World" for the Commodore 64 (6510, a 6502 derivative) in a miniassembler today in five minutes, and it maxed out at 38 bytes (this includes the "print" function and the text).</p><p>Here's the code; the labels are addresses because miniassemblers only use addresses, not labels (and yes, I did have to insert the text in hexadecimal, but I'm providing the text to simplify):<br>C000:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; LDA #$19<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; LDY #$C0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; STA $FB<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; STY $FC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; LDY #$00<br>C00A:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; LDY ($FB),Y<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BEQ $C018<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; JSR $FFD2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; INY<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BNE $C00A<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; INC $FC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BNE $C00A<br>C018:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; RTS<br>C019:<br>DB "HELLO WORLD!", $00</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but how big ?
I wrote " Hello World " for the Commodore 64 ( 6510 , a 6502 derivative ) in a miniassembler today in five minutes , and it maxed out at 38 bytes ( this includes the " print " function and the text ) .Here 's the code ; the labels are addresses because miniassemblers only use addresses , not labels ( and yes , I did have to insert the text in hexadecimal , but I 'm providing the text to simplify ) : C000 :       LDA # $ 19       LDY # $ C0       STA $ FB       STY $ FC       LDY # $ 00C00A :       LDY ( $ FB ) ,Y       BEQ $ C018       JSR $ FFD2       INY       BNE $ C00A       INC $ FC       BNE $ C00AC018 :       RTSC019 : DB " HELLO WORLD !
" , $ 00</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but how big?
I wrote "Hello World" for the Commodore 64 (6510, a 6502 derivative) in a miniassembler today in five minutes, and it maxed out at 38 bytes (this includes the "print" function and the text).Here's the code; the labels are addresses because miniassemblers only use addresses, not labels (and yes, I did have to insert the text in hexadecimal, but I'm providing the text to simplify):C000:
      LDA #$19
      LDY #$C0
      STA $FB
      STY $FC
      LDY #$00C00A:
      LDY ($FB),Y
      BEQ $C018
      JSR $FFD2
      INY
      BNE $C00A
      INC $FC
      BNE $C00AC018:
      RTSC019:DB "HELLO WORLD!
", $00</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506274</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's something else C programmers should know...use a real language!  Yes, programming fundamentals are extremely important.  Yes, people should learn C or C++ first.  Yes, old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread.  But seriously, anyone "still using C" like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a <b>little</b> quicker and more flexible.  I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out.  Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet.  I hear they're shipping with 4+ GB of ram and multicore processors these days.  I don't care if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10, it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it <b>instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap</b>.  The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.</p></div><p>Learn your job and maybe one day you can move up from toy computers with toy operating systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something else C programmers should know...use a real language !
Yes , programming fundamentals are extremely important .
Yes , people should learn C or C + + first .
Yes , old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread .
But seriously , anyone " still using C " like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a little quicker and more flexible .
I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out .
Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet .
I hear they 're shipping with 4 + GB of ram and multicore processors these days .
I do n't care if the .NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10 , it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap .
The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.Learn your job and maybe one day you can move up from toy computers with toy operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something else C programmers should know...use a real language!
Yes, programming fundamentals are extremely important.
Yes, people should learn C or C++ first.
Yes, old people are going to bitch as usual in response to this thread.
But seriously, anyone "still using C" like you said needs to get with it and realize that modern software needs something a little quicker and more flexible.
I heard they invented this thing called strings since C came out.
Or maybe I should just mail them a modern system spec sheet.
I hear they're shipping with 4+ GB of ram and multicore processors these days.
I don't care if the .NET control for a timer takes up like 500kb of memory instead of 10, it takes me 1 minute to write a block of code using it instead of ten days of digging through documentation and API notes and crap.
The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.Learn your job and maybe one day you can move up from toy computers with toy operating systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505504</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why C++ does not belong in embedded systems</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why C + + does not belong in embedded systems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why C++ does not belong in embedded systems</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1268766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember those. We used to have to carry them around in the snow, uphill both ways.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember those .
We used to have to carry them around in the snow , uphill both ways .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember those.
We used to have to carry them around in the snow, uphill both ways.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31520326</id>
	<title>and in the right corner</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1268908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>weighing in at 179kb, it's Hello World, the sequel

<a href="http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=30244" title="pouet.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=30244</a> [pouet.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>weighing in at 179kb , it 's Hello World , the sequel http : //www.pouet.net/prod.php ? which = 30244 [ pouet.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>weighing in at 179kb, it's Hello World, the sequel

http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=30244 [pouet.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507492</id>
	<title>"She" ?</title>
	<author>Derek Pomery</author>
	<datestamp>1268836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter (aka Organic Worker Drone BR903), who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated. '</p><p>Since no one else was indicated that I could see. (And, yeah, was kinda fun to reread this after all these years)  seems odd to assume Brian is a she...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter ( aka Organic Worker Drone BR903 ) , who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated .
'Since no one else was indicated that I could see .
( And , yeah , was kinda fun to reread this after all these years ) seems odd to assume Brian is a she.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This subsection of the Muppetlabs website is maintained by Brian Raiter (aka Organic Worker Drone BR903), who is the author of the contents where not otherwise indicated.
'Since no one else was indicated that I could see.
(And, yeah, was kinda fun to reread this after all these years)  seems odd to assume Brian is a she...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508232</id>
	<title>Next up</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MIT students try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MIT students try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MIT students try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507262</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you're including that bloated library DOS.  Much better to bypass all that cruft and just use the hardware directly.  Also, why write the whole string.  The user will just have to know that 'h' stands for hello world.  It's a training issue!</p><p>mov ax,0b800h<br>mov ds,ax<br>xor di,di<br>mov byte ptr[di],'h'<br>ret</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you 're including that bloated library DOS .
Much better to bypass all that cruft and just use the hardware directly .
Also , why write the whole string .
The user will just have to know that 'h ' stands for hello world .
It 's a training issue ! mov ax,0b800hmov ds,axxor di,dimov byte ptr [ di ] ,'h'ret</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you're including that bloated library DOS.
Much better to bypass all that cruft and just use the hardware directly.
Also, why write the whole string.
The user will just have to know that 'h' stands for hello world.
It's a training issue!mov ax,0b800hmov ds,axxor di,dimov byte ptr[di],'h'ret</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506654</id>
	<title>Re:Bare metal DOS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're actually programming on "bare metal", you're not really using DOS, are you? After all, DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.</p></div><p>MS DOS was a DISK Operating System. Early DOS basically took care of disk-operations and the file system (and that could be circumvented), everything else you wrote in assembler was at its highest level BIOS calls or, even more bare metal,  writing/reading to/from the right memory adresses or ports. DOS took care of getting the programs into the main memory and started the execution, but the only DOS call most programs ever made was INT 20 (exit).</p><p>MS DOS was not a real operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're actually programming on " bare metal " , you 're not really using DOS , are you ?
After all , DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.MS DOS was a DISK Operating System .
Early DOS basically took care of disk-operations and the file system ( and that could be circumvented ) , everything else you wrote in assembler was at its highest level BIOS calls or , even more bare metal , writing/reading to/from the right memory adresses or ports .
DOS took care of getting the programs into the main memory and started the execution , but the only DOS call most programs ever made was INT 20 ( exit ) .MS DOS was not a real operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're actually programming on "bare metal", you're not really using DOS, are you?
After all, DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.MS DOS was a DISK Operating System.
Early DOS basically took care of disk-operations and the file system (and that could be circumvented), everything else you wrote in assembler was at its highest level BIOS calls or, even more bare metal,  writing/reading to/from the right memory adresses or ports.
DOS took care of getting the programs into the main memory and started the execution, but the only DOS call most programs ever made was INT 20 (exit).MS DOS was not a real operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504862</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>42 is short for hello world apparently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>42 is short for hello world apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>42 is short for hello world apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505116</id>
	<title>She?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's written by a Brian Raiter. Where did 'she' come from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's written by a Brian Raiter .
Where did 'she ' come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's written by a Brian Raiter.
Where did 'she' come from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505278</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is worse</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1268766540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?</p><p>I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code. I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++. Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced. The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's utilities you can run to pull unused object code out of your file, to make the executable smaller.</p><p>But in general, if you are care about a 300k increase in your executable, you should probably be using C anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the linker remove unreferenced functions ? I 've had this problem with gcc for a while , with C + + code .
I was writing some embedded code , and I wanted to use some simple C + + .
Just by adding a # include of one of the stream libraries .
the executable grew by 200k , even though none of it was referenced .
The C + + code in iostream is template-generated anyway , so even if the compiler wanted to include the code , it ca n't until I instantiate it.There 's utilities you can run to pull unused object code out of your file , to make the executable smaller.But in general , if you are care about a 300k increase in your executable , you should probably be using C anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code.
I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++.
Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries.
the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced.
The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.There's utilities you can run to pull unused object code out of your file, to make the executable smaller.But in general, if you are care about a 300k increase in your executable, you should probably be using C anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</id>
	<title>29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c:\  xxx&gt;debug<br>-a<br>mov dx, 100<br>mov cx, 000D<br>mov bx, 1<br>mov ah, 40<br>int 21<br>mov ah, 4C<br>int 21<br>-f 111 "Hello World!"<br>-a100<br>mov dx, 0111<br>-r cx<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:001D<br>-n c:\  xxx\  hello.com<br>-w<br>-q</p><p>c:\  xxx&gt;hello.com<br>Hello World!</p><p>c:\  xxx&gt;dir hello.com<br>03/18/2011  11:29 AM                29 HELLO.COM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c : \ xxx &gt; debug-amov dx , 100mov cx , 000Dmov bx , 1mov ah , 40int 21mov ah , 4Cint 21-f 111 " Hello World !
" -a100mov dx , 0111-r cx : 001D-n c : \ xxx \ hello.com-w-qc : \ xxx &gt; hello.comHello World ! c : \ xxx &gt; dir hello.com03/18/2011 11 : 29 AM 29 HELLO.COM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c:\  xxx&gt;debug-amov dx, 100mov cx, 000Dmov bx, 1mov ah, 40int 21mov ah, 4Cint 21-f 111 "Hello World!
"-a100mov dx, 0111-r cx :001D-n c:\  xxx\  hello.com-w-qc:\  xxx&gt;hello.comHello World!c:\  xxx&gt;dir hello.com03/18/2011  11:29 AM                29 HELLO.COM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504450</id>
	<title>Sell your Seagate shares *now* ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and pile up on 64x8 TTL Proms!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and pile up on 64x8 TTL Proms !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and pile up on 64x8 TTL Proms!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1268764800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a shock this comes from Kdawson. I'm about one more kdawson article away from dumping slashdot. I can't imagine that all the people in the slashdot batcave aren't laughing at this tool.<br>I sometimes wonder if he just goes out and gets completely hammered at lunch then comes back and picks a few articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a shock this comes from Kdawson .
I 'm about one more kdawson article away from dumping slashdot .
I ca n't imagine that all the people in the slashdot batcave are n't laughing at this tool.I sometimes wonder if he just goes out and gets completely hammered at lunch then comes back and picks a few articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a shock this comes from Kdawson.
I'm about one more kdawson article away from dumping slashdot.
I can't imagine that all the people in the slashdot batcave aren't laughing at this tool.I sometimes wonder if he just goes out and gets completely hammered at lunch then comes back and picks a few articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504656</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1268757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps, but everything old is new again.  Would you have thought back in 1999 that we would be sending messages to each other using <a href="http://twitter.com/" title="twitter.com" rel="nofollow">a proprietary centralized system with 140 statically allocated character arrays</a> [twitter.com]?  I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps , but everything old is new again .
Would you have thought back in 1999 that we would be sending messages to each other using a proprietary centralized system with 140 statically allocated character arrays [ twitter.com ] ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps, but everything old is new again.
Would you have thought back in 1999 that we would be sending messages to each other using a proprietary centralized system with 140 statically allocated character arrays [twitter.com]?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507838</id>
	<title>Re:29 bytes ! Beat that !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yours does more than the article did.  Yours actually prints hello world.  Hers just returned 42.  So I am sure you can do even better...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yours does more than the article did .
Yours actually prints hello world .
Hers just returned 42 .
So I am sure you can do even better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yours does more than the article did.
Yours actually prints hello world.
Hers just returned 42.
So I am sure you can do even better...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512042</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Step three</b>, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.  <b>Step five</b>, start cheating in the elf binary format.</p></div><p>Step four, Profit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step three , perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually .
Step five , start cheating in the elf binary format.Step four , Profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually.
Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.Step four, Profit?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</id>
	<title>BTDT</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268751900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*sigh*</p><p>Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* sigh * Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*sigh*Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506068</id>
	<title>Re:Damn kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries.  It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something like</p><p> <tt><br>char*cp="Hello World";<br>char *addr=0xB8000000;<br>while(*addr++ = *cp++);<br></tt> </p><p>That's the C version, of course.  You'd actually do it in assembly.  My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.</p></div><p>Ah, the wonders of protected mode that doesn't let you do great stuff like that anymore. Anyway, as far as i remeber the address is 0xb8000 and you have to increment *addr twice because the second byte is the color you want to display the first byte in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the DOS days , any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer , allowing you to display text without any libraries .
It 's been many years , so I am probably getting this wrong , but in psuedocode it 'd look something like char * cp = " Hello World " ; char * addr = 0xB8000000 ; while ( * addr + + = * cp + + ) ; That 's the C version , of course .
You 'd actually do it in assembly .
My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes , but again , it 's been decades since I 've done anything like that.Ah , the wonders of protected mode that does n't let you do great stuff like that anymore .
Anyway , as far as i remeber the address is 0xb8000 and you have to increment * addr twice because the second byte is the color you want to display the first byte in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries.
It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something like char*cp="Hello World";char *addr=0xB8000000;while(*addr++ = *cp++); That's the C version, of course.
You'd actually do it in assembly.
My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.Ah, the wonders of protected mode that doesn't let you do great stuff like that anymore.
Anyway, as far as i remeber the address is 0xb8000 and you have to increment *addr twice because the second byte is the color you want to display the first byte in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506302</id>
	<title>Wow, er, how is this special?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1268824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's this doing on slashdot?</p><p>I've written whole projects on microcontrollers (in C) that do much, much more than "Hello World", in less than 10 kB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's this doing on slashdot ? I 've written whole projects on microcontrollers ( in C ) that do much , much more than " Hello World " , in less than 10 kB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's this doing on slashdot?I've written whole projects on microcontrollers (in C) that do much, much more than "Hello World", in less than 10 kB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!' part of a hello world program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World !
' part of a hello world program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!
' part of a hello world program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505786</id>
	<title>AppleScript version is fun</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1268818680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>say "hello world"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>say " hello world "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>say "hello world"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505362</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>Chris Rhodes</author>
	<datestamp>1268767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously didn't understand it.  The binary wasn't inappropriately formatted.  It had a \_start function and a main function, and used standard C calling conventions, because it was a C program compiled by gcc and linked by gcc.<br>
<br>
E.g.:<br>
<br>
gcc -nostdlib stubstart.S -o hello hello.c</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously did n't understand it .
The binary was n't inappropriately formatted .
It had a \ _start function and a main function , and used standard C calling conventions , because it was a C program compiled by gcc and linked by gcc .
E.g. : gcc -nostdlib stubstart.S -o hello hello.c</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously didn't understand it.
The binary wasn't inappropriately formatted.
It had a \_start function and a main function, and used standard C calling conventions, because it was a C program compiled by gcc and linked by gcc.
E.g.:

gcc -nostdlib stubstart.S -o hello hello.c</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was only submitted because the author has a vagina between her legs, and geeks go ga-ga over anybody with a cunt. The author has been identified as the sitting cumdumpster on the far left of <a href="http://blog.ksplice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ksplice-iap-21.jpg" title="ksplice.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [ksplice.com] picture.<br> <br>

I knew her when she went to high school. She was popular for taking random dudes into her daddy's bedroom, unzipping their flys, and fellating them through their still-buttoned pants! She has a distinctive giggle that was often muffled from the come in her mouth and on her lips. She also liked to wear her shirts all day, especially if they were stained with her partners' jissom. <br> <br>

Daddy: <i>" What's that all over your chest, Jessie? "</i> <br>
Jessica: <i>" It's, um, glue from my popsicle-stick project. Hnnhnnhnnhnnhnnheehee! "</i> <br>
Daddy: <i>" Aww, how cute. You're so adorable, precious "</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was only submitted because the author has a vagina between her legs , and geeks go ga-ga over anybody with a cunt .
The author has been identified as the sitting cumdumpster on the far left of this [ ksplice.com ] picture .
I knew her when she went to high school .
She was popular for taking random dudes into her daddy 's bedroom , unzipping their flys , and fellating them through their still-buttoned pants !
She has a distinctive giggle that was often muffled from the come in her mouth and on her lips .
She also liked to wear her shirts all day , especially if they were stained with her partners ' jissom .
Daddy : " What 's that all over your chest , Jessie ?
" Jessica : " It 's , um , glue from my popsicle-stick project .
Hnnhnnhnnhnnhnnheehee ! " Daddy : " Aww , how cute .
You 're so adorable , precious "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was only submitted because the author has a vagina between her legs, and geeks go ga-ga over anybody with a cunt.
The author has been identified as the sitting cumdumpster on the far left of this [ksplice.com] picture.
I knew her when she went to high school.
She was popular for taking random dudes into her daddy's bedroom, unzipping their flys, and fellating them through their still-buttoned pants!
She has a distinctive giggle that was often muffled from the come in her mouth and on her lips.
She also liked to wear her shirts all day, especially if they were stained with her partners' jissom.
Daddy: " What's that all over your chest, Jessie?
" 
Jessica: " It's, um, glue from my popsicle-stick project.
Hnnhnnhnnhnnhnnheehee! " 
Daddy: " Aww, how cute.
You're so adorable, precious "</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504312</id>
	<title>Stoner code.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1268754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, when I first read this, I thought to myself, "now why in the hell would anyone care to do this?"</p><p>Then it dawned on me.  One stoned programmer said to another....Yeah, that's probably how it went down.  Both now, and back in 1979, when you could still smoke in the Data Center...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , when I first read this , I thought to myself , " now why in the hell would anyone care to do this ?
" Then it dawned on me .
One stoned programmer said to another....Yeah , that 's probably how it went down .
Both now , and back in 1979 , when you could still smoke in the Data Center.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, when I first read this, I thought to myself, "now why in the hell would anyone care to do this?
"Then it dawned on me.
One stoned programmer said to another....Yeah, that's probably how it went down.
Both now, and back in 1979, when you could still smoke in the Data Center...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504902</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, but</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1268760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer to that question is 42.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to that question is 42 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to that question is 42.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513826</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1268858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Furthermore, any program which does much is going to use most of the routines in that 11K that's always linked in.

<p>Still, growing up with the Mac compilers of the 1990s where stripping unused routines out of the executable was a standard feature, I'm amazed that many compilers even today don't do that. If I define 20 functions in a source file and only call one, and it doesn't call any of the others either, why the hell does the linker link everything else in? I've written several toy assemblers over the years and they all stripped out unused routines (you'd mark the boundary between each routine so the linker knew). It's very useful there because size does matter when writing in assembler, and you might want to include a general utilities library without having to manually figure out which routines you actually call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , any program which does much is going to use most of the routines in that 11K that 's always linked in .
Still , growing up with the Mac compilers of the 1990s where stripping unused routines out of the executable was a standard feature , I 'm amazed that many compilers even today do n't do that .
If I define 20 functions in a source file and only call one , and it does n't call any of the others either , why the hell does the linker link everything else in ?
I 've written several toy assemblers over the years and they all stripped out unused routines ( you 'd mark the boundary between each routine so the linker knew ) .
It 's very useful there because size does matter when writing in assembler , and you might want to include a general utilities library without having to manually figure out which routines you actually call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, any program which does much is going to use most of the routines in that 11K that's always linked in.
Still, growing up with the Mac compilers of the 1990s where stripping unused routines out of the executable was a standard feature, I'm amazed that many compilers even today don't do that.
If I define 20 functions in a source file and only call one, and it doesn't call any of the others either, why the hell does the linker link everything else in?
I've written several toy assemblers over the years and they all stripped out unused routines (you'd mark the boundary between each routine so the linker knew).
It's very useful there because size does matter when writing in assembler, and you might want to include a general utilities library without having to manually figure out which routines you actually call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509252</id>
	<title>Ultimate article summary</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1268844000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To make the C program which displays "Hello, world!" smaller, don't display "Hello, world!" and use a different language.</p><p>I appreciate the obsessiveness, but it kinda misses the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To make the C program which displays " Hello , world !
" smaller , do n't display " Hello , world !
" and use a different language.I appreciate the obsessiveness , but it kinda misses the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make the C program which displays "Hello, world!
" smaller, don't display "Hello, world!
" and use a different language.I appreciate the obsessiveness, but it kinda misses the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505610</id>
	<title>July, 1999...</title>
	<author>pedantic bore</author>
	<datestamp>1268859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> So, this was written in <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensyps.html" title="muppetlabs.com">1999</a> [muppetlabs.com]... But it's a nice read; clear and well explained. </p><p> But has anyone tested to see whether Linux <i>still</i> doesn't check ELF executables for nutty stuff like this?  It's come a long way in the last decade... </p><p> (Since I don't have any x86 boxes handy, I'm just going to have to trust someone else to try it...) </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this was written in 1999 [ muppetlabs.com ] ... But it 's a nice read ; clear and well explained .
But has anyone tested to see whether Linux still does n't check ELF executables for nutty stuff like this ?
It 's come a long way in the last decade... ( Since I do n't have any x86 boxes handy , I 'm just going to have to trust someone else to try it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So, this was written in 1999 [muppetlabs.com]... But it's a nice read; clear and well explained.
But has anyone tested to see whether Linux still doesn't check ELF executables for nutty stuff like this?
It's come a long way in the last decade...  (Since I don't have any x86 boxes handy, I'm just going to have to trust someone else to try it...) </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504604</id>
	<title>Re:11k Is Too Big?</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1268757120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These days, costs of development and deployment, not runtime memory usage, are the limiting factors in software development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , costs of development and deployment , not runtime memory usage , are the limiting factors in software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, costs of development and deployment, not runtime memory usage, are the limiting factors in software development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505896</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why does she go by the name Brian? Is this a level of Monty Python in-joke that the rest of us can't even dream of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why does she go by the name Brian ?
Is this a level of Monty Python in-joke that the rest of us ca n't even dream of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why does she go by the name Brian?
Is this a level of Monty Python in-joke that the rest of us can't even dream of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504152</id>
	<title>Similarly</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1268752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awhile back I read <a href="http://www.phreedom.org/solar/code/tinype/" title="phreedom.org">another similar article</a> [phreedom.org].  In the article the smallest PE created is a bit larger (97 bytes), but a little more standards compliant.  More interestingly, however, the author crafts a program that downloads and executes another program in only 133 bytes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awhile back I read another similar article [ phreedom.org ] .
In the article the smallest PE created is a bit larger ( 97 bytes ) , but a little more standards compliant .
More interestingly , however , the author crafts a program that downloads and executes another program in only 133 bytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awhile back I read another similar article [phreedom.org].
In the article the smallest PE created is a bit larger (97 bytes), but a little more standards compliant.
More interestingly, however, the author crafts a program that downloads and executes another program in only 133 bytes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504346</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I read this about 10 years ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I read this about 10 years ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I read this about 10 years ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518502</id>
	<title>Re:BTDT</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1268841300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, and add a slice of 'no shit, ASM can do it in less than anything else', since you know, thats how EVERYTHING ENDS UP anyway.</p><p>Taco, seriously, remove kdawson and timithoy's access to post stories to the front page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , and add a slice of 'no shit , ASM can do it in less than anything else ' , since you know , thats how EVERYTHING ENDS UP anyway.Taco , seriously , remove kdawson and timithoy 's access to post stories to the front page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, and add a slice of 'no shit, ASM can do it in less than anything else', since you know, thats how EVERYTHING ENDS UP anyway.Taco, seriously, remove kdawson and timithoy's access to post stories to the front page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507152</id>
	<title>How about 28 bytes?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c:\ xxx&gt;debug<br>-a<br>mov dx, 100<br>mov cx, 000D<br>mov bx, 1<br>mov ah, 40<br>int 21<br>mov ah, 4C<br>int 21<br>-f 111 "Hello World"<br>-a100<br>mov dx, 0111<br>-r cx<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:001C<br>-n c:\ xxx\ hello.com<br>-w<br>-q</p><p>c:\ xxx&gt;hello.com<br>Hello World</p><p>c:\ xxx&gt;dir hello.com<br>03/18/2011 11:29 AM 28 HELLO.COM</p><p>What do I win?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c : \ xxx &gt; debug-amov dx , 100mov cx , 000Dmov bx , 1mov ah , 40int 21mov ah , 4Cint 21-f 111 " Hello World " -a100mov dx , 0111-r cx : 001C-n c : \ xxx \ hello.com-w-qc : \ xxx &gt; hello.comHello Worldc : \ xxx &gt; dir hello.com03/18/2011 11 : 29 AM 28 HELLO.COMWhat do I win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c:\ xxx&gt;debug-amov dx, 100mov cx, 000Dmov bx, 1mov ah, 40int 21mov ah, 4Cint 21-f 111 "Hello World"-a100mov dx, 0111-r cx :001C-n c:\ xxx\ hello.com-w-qc:\ xxx&gt;hello.comHello Worldc:\ xxx&gt;dir hello.com03/18/2011 11:29 AM 28 HELLO.COMWhat do I win?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504628</id>
	<title>Bare metal DOS?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1268757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're actually programming on "bare metal", you're not really using DOS, are you? After all, DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're actually programming on " bare metal " , you 're not really using DOS , are you ?
After all , DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're actually programming on "bare metal", you're not really using DOS, are you?
After all, DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504522</id>
	<title>Ah, hello world.</title>
	<author>SomeGuyFromCA</author>
	<datestamp>1268756280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. When I got bored with having to write it for the 12th damn time, all I did was this:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>#include&lt;stdio.h&gt;<br>#include&lt;stdlib.h&gt;<br>
&nbsp; <br>int main(int argc, char *argv[])<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; srand((unsigned)time(0));<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; char* target = "Hello, world!";<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; char work = (char)(rand()\%97)+32;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; int cycle = 0;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; while (cycle != strlen(target)){<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while ((work = (char)(rand()\%97)+32) != target[cycle]) {}<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; putchar(work);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ++cycle;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; return 0;<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
When I got bored with having to write it for the 12th damn time , all I did was this : # include # include   int main ( int argc , char * argv [ ] ) {     srand ( ( unsigned ) time ( 0 ) ) ;     char * target = " Hello , world !
" ;     char work = ( char ) ( rand ( ) \ % 97 ) + 32 ;     int cycle = 0 ;     while ( cycle ! = strlen ( target ) ) {         while ( ( work = ( char ) ( rand ( ) \ % 97 ) + 32 ) ! = target [ cycle ] ) { }           putchar ( work ) ;         + + cycle ;     }     return 0 ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
When I got bored with having to write it for the 12th damn time, all I did was this: #include#include
  int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
    srand((unsigned)time(0));
    char* target = "Hello, world!
";
    char work = (char)(rand()\%97)+32;
    int cycle = 0;
    while (cycle != strlen(target)){
        while ((work = (char)(rand()\%97)+32) != target[cycle]) {}
          putchar(work);
        ++cycle;
    }
    return 0;} 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106</id>
	<title>Nice but?</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1268752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, this is wicked great in theory. Our programs have become bloated. We do have them taking up too much RAM, HD space, and CPU time. But after reading through this in-depth analysis I have to wonder if it's all worth it.</p><p><i>If we're willing to leave behind all pretenses of portability, we can make our program exit without having to link with anything else. First, though, we need to know how to make a system call under Linux.</i></p><p>Or I can just write it the old way, making the file size larger and not have to concern myself with portability and how to make system calls under Linux. After all that's what the whole point of this all was right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this is wicked great in theory .
Our programs have become bloated .
We do have them taking up too much RAM , HD space , and CPU time .
But after reading through this in-depth analysis I have to wonder if it 's all worth it.If we 're willing to leave behind all pretenses of portability , we can make our program exit without having to link with anything else .
First , though , we need to know how to make a system call under Linux.Or I can just write it the old way , making the file size larger and not have to concern myself with portability and how to make system calls under Linux .
After all that 's what the whole point of this all was right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this is wicked great in theory.
Our programs have become bloated.
We do have them taking up too much RAM, HD space, and CPU time.
But after reading through this in-depth analysis I have to wonder if it's all worth it.If we're willing to leave behind all pretenses of portability, we can make our program exit without having to link with anything else.
First, though, we need to know how to make a system call under Linux.Or I can just write it the old way, making the file size larger and not have to concern myself with portability and how to make system calls under Linux.
After all that's what the whole point of this all was right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504446</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/be2ro/i\_want\_to\_compile\_a\_c\_program\_so\_simple\_i\_can/" title="reddit.com" rel="nofollow">uploaded to Reddit</a> [reddit.com] 12 hours ago; that's probably why it's just reaching Slashdot now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was uploaded to Reddit [ reddit.com ] 12 hours ago ; that 's probably why it 's just reaching Slashdot now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was uploaded to Reddit [reddit.com] 12 hours ago; that's probably why it's just reaching Slashdot now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507746</id>
	<title>Devices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we still program in C (I don't, but others here do) because if we wrote in something like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Ruby or Python the executable would be so much bigger and the binaries <i>wouldn't fit on the device hardware</i>. So sometimes having something 'closer to the iron' is better.</p><p>Then again, when telling a device how to servo, string interpretation is seldom of high concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we still program in C ( I do n't , but others here do ) because if we wrote in something like .NET , Ruby or Python the executable would be so much bigger and the binaries would n't fit on the device hardware .
So sometimes having something 'closer to the iron ' is better.Then again , when telling a device how to servo , string interpretation is seldom of high concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we still program in C (I don't, but others here do) because if we wrote in something like .NET, Ruby or Python the executable would be so much bigger and the binaries wouldn't fit on the device hardware.
So sometimes having something 'closer to the iron' is better.Then again, when telling a device how to servo, string interpretation is seldom of high concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505658</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268816940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>looks like a bunch of pirates;<br>there is no more fun at all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like a bunch of pirates ; there is no more fun at all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like a bunch of pirates;there is no more fun at all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506440</id>
	<title>exe vs com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a discussion at some game dev forum a few years ago, using VS60 (which compiles to win32 exe) some person come up with a ~400 bytes exe file (doing nothing).</p><p>Using DOS, a 14 bytes program is enough:<br>MOV  AH,09<br>MOV  DX,0108<br>INT  21<br>RET<br>DEC  AX<br>DB   65<br>DB   6C<br>DB   6C<br>DB   6F<br>DB   24<br>-------<br>14 bytes.<br>With INT 21 (requires DOS). A couple more if only using BIOS/INT10 (no OS), must then print each char as individual characters, cannot print a whole string in 1 call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a discussion at some game dev forum a few years ago , using VS60 ( which compiles to win32 exe ) some person come up with a ~ 400 bytes exe file ( doing nothing ) .Using DOS , a 14 bytes program is enough : MOV AH,09MOV DX,0108INT 21RETDEC AXDB 65DB 6CDB 6CDB 6FDB 24-------14 bytes.With INT 21 ( requires DOS ) .
A couple more if only using BIOS/INT10 ( no OS ) , must then print each char as individual characters , can not print a whole string in 1 call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a discussion at some game dev forum a few years ago, using VS60 (which compiles to win32 exe) some person come up with a ~400 bytes exe file (doing nothing).Using DOS, a 14 bytes program is enough:MOV  AH,09MOV  DX,0108INT  21RETDEC  AXDB   65DB   6CDB   6CDB   6FDB   24-------14 bytes.With INT 21 (requires DOS).
A couple more if only using BIOS/INT10 (no OS), must then print each char as individual characters, cannot print a whole string in 1 call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31542670</id>
	<title>Re:Not a C program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269031740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries. BAD. Linux kernel people? Are you reading this? Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.</p></div><p>Just as soon as you explain why executing an inappropriately formatted binary is more exploitable than an appropriately formatted one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries .
BAD. Linux kernel people ?
Are you reading this ?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.Just as soon as you explain why executing an inappropriately formatted binary is more exploitable than an appropriately formatted one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries.
BAD. Linux kernel people?
Are you reading this?
Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.Just as soon as you explain why executing an inappropriately formatted binary is more exploitable than an appropriately formatted one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504254</id>
	<title>GCC...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which will dynamic link glibc even when you need static. (Think it's nsswitch???)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which will dynamic link glibc even when you need static .
( Think it 's nsswitch ? ? ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which will dynamic link glibc even when you need static.
(Think it's nsswitch???
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504868</id>
	<title>Re:Old news is VERY OLD</title>
	<author>siride</author>
	<datestamp>1268759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this one is actually interesting, unlike hers, which simply cuts out libc (boring).  This one overlays the ELF header with the program code itself, which I find to be rather clever.  In fact, it's better than the 29 byte DOS COM executable because COM files don't have headers and so don't have to deal with that problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this one is actually interesting , unlike hers , which simply cuts out libc ( boring ) .
This one overlays the ELF header with the program code itself , which I find to be rather clever .
In fact , it 's better than the 29 byte DOS COM executable because COM files do n't have headers and so do n't have to deal with that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this one is actually interesting, unlike hers, which simply cuts out libc (boring).
This one overlays the ELF header with the program code itself, which I find to be rather clever.
In fact, it's better than the 29 byte DOS COM executable because COM files don't have headers and so don't have to deal with that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505380</id>
	<title>Mine is simpler</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1268768280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>/* -*- coding: utf-8-unix -*- */<br><br>#include &lt;stdio.h&gt;<br><br>int main(int O, char **o)<br>{<br>&nbsp; int l4, l0, l, I, lO[]= { 444,131131,13031,12721,17871,20202,1111,<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 20102,18781,666,85558,66066,2222,0 };<br><br>&nbsp; for(l4=0;l4&lt;14;++l4){<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; for((l=l0=lO[l4])&amp;&amp;(l0=-7);<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; l&gt;4&amp;&amp;(I=2-((l|l&gt;&gt;O)&amp;O));l=l&amp;O?l+(l&lt;&lt;O)+O:l&gt;&gt;I,l0+=I);{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; putchar(10+l0);<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; }<br><br>&nbsp; return 0;<br>}</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ * - * - coding : utf-8-unix - * - * / # include int main ( int O , char * * o ) {   int l4 , l0 , l , I , lO [ ] = { 444,131131,13031,12721,17871,20202,1111 ,                 20102,18781,666,85558,66066,2222,0 } ;   for ( l4 = 0 ; l4     for ( ( l = l0 = lO [ l4 ] ) &amp;&amp; ( l0 = -7 ) ;     l &gt; 4&amp;&amp; ( I = 2- ( ( l | l &gt; &gt; O ) &amp;O ) ) ; l = l&amp;O ? l + ( l &gt; I,l0 + = I ) ; {       putchar ( 10 + l0 ) ;     }   }   return 0 ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/* -*- coding: utf-8-unix -*- */#include int main(int O, char **o){  int l4, l0, l, I, lO[]= { 444,131131,13031,12721,17871,20202,1111,                20102,18781,666,85558,66066,2222,0 };  for(l4=0;l4    for((l=l0=lO[l4])&amp;&amp;(l0=-7);    l&gt;4&amp;&amp;(I=2-((l|l&gt;&gt;O)&amp;O));l=l&amp;O?l+(l&gt;I,l0+=I);{      putchar(10+l0);    }  }  return 0;}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504854</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, but</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1268759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's quantum output, you fool! By viewing it, you've changed it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quantum output , you fool !
By viewing it , you 've changed it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quantum output, you fool!
By viewing it, you've changed it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504770</id>
	<title>How on earth is this news?</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1268758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a great article.  But it's not new.</p><p>I referred to it as a reference in something published by developerWorks <b>in 2005</b>.</p><p><a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec12/" title="ibm.com">http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec12/</a> [ibm.com]</p><p>Shouldn't "news" be, say, less than HALF A DECADE OLD?  Oh, wait.  It's kdawson, who has a nearly magical power for making bad decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great article .
But it 's not new.I referred to it as a reference in something published by developerWorks in 2005.http : //www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec12/ [ ibm.com ] Should n't " news " be , say , less than HALF A DECADE OLD ?
Oh , wait .
It 's kdawson , who has a nearly magical power for making bad decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great article.
But it's not new.I referred to it as a reference in something published by developerWorks in 2005.http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec12/ [ibm.com]Shouldn't "news" be, say, less than HALF A DECADE OLD?
Oh, wait.
It's kdawson, who has a nearly magical power for making bad decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31542670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31520462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31521198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31522578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31511572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31592490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31519112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31563840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31578754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_2216258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31592490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31511572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506940
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506326
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506274
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31521198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505912
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507448
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31523610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31519112
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31563840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31520462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504318
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504604
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31578754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31508152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31507466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31510556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31512042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31522578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31513392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31518212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31542670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31505002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31509188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31506160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_2216258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_2216258.31504168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
