<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_0128242</id>
	<title>New HDMI 1.4 Spec Set To Confuse</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243782600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:james.s.byrnes@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">thefickler</a> writes <i>"HDMI Licensing LLC, the company that determines the specifications of the HDMI standard, is  <a href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:\%20/2009/05/30/new-hdmi-14-spec-could-lead-to-consumer-confusion/">set to release the HDMI 1.4 spec on 30 June</a>. Unfortunately it could very well be the most confusing thing to ever happen to setting up a home theater.  When the new cables are released, you're going to need to read the packaging very carefully because effectively there are now going to be five different versions of HDMI to choose from &mdash; HDMI Ethernet Channel, Audio Return Channel, 3D Over HDMI, 4K x2K Resolution Support and a new Automotive HDMI. At least we can't complain about consumer choice."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thefickler writes " HDMI Licensing LLC , the company that determines the specifications of the HDMI standard , is set to release the HDMI 1.4 spec on 30 June .
Unfortunately it could very well be the most confusing thing to ever happen to setting up a home theater .
When the new cables are released , you 're going to need to read the packaging very carefully because effectively there are now going to be five different versions of HDMI to choose from    HDMI Ethernet Channel , Audio Return Channel , 3D Over HDMI , 4K x2K Resolution Support and a new Automotive HDMI .
At least we ca n't complain about consumer choice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thefickler writes "HDMI Licensing LLC, the company that determines the specifications of the HDMI standard, is  set to release the HDMI 1.4 spec on 30 June.
Unfortunately it could very well be the most confusing thing to ever happen to setting up a home theater.
When the new cables are released, you're going to need to read the packaging very carefully because effectively there are now going to be five different versions of HDMI to choose from — HDMI Ethernet Channel, Audio Return Channel, 3D Over HDMI, 4K x2K Resolution Support and a new Automotive HDMI.
At least we can't complain about consumer choice.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156705</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>alienzed</author>
	<datestamp>1243764900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the heck is crutchfield?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the heck is crutchfield ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the heck is crutchfield?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155665</id>
	<title>How many tv's, cable / sat boxes / sound amps, dvd</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1243706040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many tv's, cable / sat boxes / sound amps, dvd / blue ray, game systems , pc's / video cards will even support all of this and will you have to look at see what the box can do as well as the cable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many tv 's , cable / sat boxes / sound amps , dvd / blue ray , game systems , pc 's / video cards will even support all of this and will you have to look at see what the box can do as well as the cable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many tv's, cable / sat boxes / sound amps, dvd / blue ray, game systems , pc's / video cards will even support all of this and will you have to look at see what the box can do as well as the cable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157623</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1243778820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So every time a new video codec comes out, I have to update my monitor's firmware or upgrade the processor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So every time a new video codec comes out , I have to update my monitor 's firmware or upgrade the processor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So every time a new video codec comes out, I have to update my monitor's firmware or upgrade the processor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155173</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI Ethernet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell mod'd this insightful?  How is 100mbit Ethernet OBSOLETE?  Did I miss a decade??  I'll let the network guys in the data center know its time to remove those 100mbit lines, we need 100gigabit baby!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell mod 'd this insightful ?
How is 100mbit Ethernet OBSOLETE ?
Did I miss a decade ? ?
I 'll let the network guys in the data center know its time to remove those 100mbit lines , we need 100gigabit baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell mod'd this insightful?
How is 100mbit Ethernet OBSOLETE?
Did I miss a decade??
I'll let the network guys in the data center know its time to remove those 100mbit lines, we need 100gigabit baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156423</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1243802880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to add to this: <i>You can actually get/<a href="http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/611016.html" title="whirlpool.net.au">make</a> [whirlpool.net.au] HDMI-&gt;ethernet-&gt;HDMI converter cables.</i> If you cut out and wire the cable in yourself it'll work fine, if you use professional ones it'll route through your switches and everything. This should leave no question about why HDMI was developed; it isn't cheaper, it doesn't run for longer lengths, it doesn't give a better picture, it's just a different plug with copper inside to make us buy new shit every year.<br> <br>

I've spent over $200 this year on HDMI cables and an HDMI splitter (mainly to run a cable through a wall to a projector), and I diligently made sure they were all 1.3b compliant like the moron I am, and along comes 1.4..<br>
<b>How can a cable which streams digital data from A to B become obsolete due to a protocol change?</b> Have these guys really not heard of the OSI model (also known as "common sense")?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to add to this : You can actually get/make [ whirlpool.net.au ] HDMI- &gt; ethernet- &gt; HDMI converter cables .
If you cut out and wire the cable in yourself it 'll work fine , if you use professional ones it 'll route through your switches and everything .
This should leave no question about why HDMI was developed ; it is n't cheaper , it does n't run for longer lengths , it does n't give a better picture , it 's just a different plug with copper inside to make us buy new shit every year .
I 've spent over $ 200 this year on HDMI cables and an HDMI splitter ( mainly to run a cable through a wall to a projector ) , and I diligently made sure they were all 1.3b compliant like the moron I am , and along comes 1.4. . How can a cable which streams digital data from A to B become obsolete due to a protocol change ?
Have these guys really not heard of the OSI model ( also known as " common sense " ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to add to this: You can actually get/make [whirlpool.net.au] HDMI-&gt;ethernet-&gt;HDMI converter cables.
If you cut out and wire the cable in yourself it'll work fine, if you use professional ones it'll route through your switches and everything.
This should leave no question about why HDMI was developed; it isn't cheaper, it doesn't run for longer lengths, it doesn't give a better picture, it's just a different plug with copper inside to make us buy new shit every year.
I've spent over $200 this year on HDMI cables and an HDMI splitter (mainly to run a cable through a wall to a projector), and I diligently made sure they were all 1.3b compliant like the moron I am, and along comes 1.4..
How can a cable which streams digital data from A to B become obsolete due to a protocol change?
Have these guys really not heard of the OSI model (also known as "common sense")?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164021</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243789080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable.</p></div><p>So, what's the wire gauge on that sucker? The build quality? And, as noted by other replies, not all of the world has cheap sources, and monoprice.com doesn't ship outside the US and Canada.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable.So , what 's the wire gauge on that sucker ?
The build quality ?
And , as noted by other replies , not all of the world has cheap sources , and monoprice.com does n't ship outside the US and Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable.So, what's the wire gauge on that sucker?
The build quality?
And, as noted by other replies, not all of the world has cheap sources, and monoprice.com doesn't ship outside the US and Canada.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079</id>
	<title>article summary is very poor</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1243700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 5 cables in the spec, but the descriptions are incorrect.</p><p>There 4 cables which are the 4 possible combinations of low-bandwidth (often referred to as HDMI 1.1) and high-bandwidth (capable of 1080p/60, deep color, etc., often referred to as HDMI 1.3) with the possibilities of supporting ethernet in the cable (100mbit) or not.</p><p>So there are:<br>low-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable)<br>high-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable)<br>low-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet<br>high-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet</p><p>Now, in reality, it's already difficult to buy an HDMI 1.1 cable, and likely few going to make a low-bandwidth cable with ethernet added, since low-bandwidth cables aren't popular already.</p><p>So that leaves two of these cables to decide between:<br>HDMI 1.3 cable<br>high-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet (perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable?)</p><p>and then there is one final cable, the wildcard, the automotive HDMI cable.</p><p>So 3 cables to choose from, one of which is a weirdo cable (automotive).</p><p>I don't think this will cause much of a problem.</p><p>The options listed in the article, return channel, etc, are all things added to the spec that can be there for an HDMI 1.4 device but without needing a specialized cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 5 cables in the spec , but the descriptions are incorrect.There 4 cables which are the 4 possible combinations of low-bandwidth ( often referred to as HDMI 1.1 ) and high-bandwidth ( capable of 1080p/60 , deep color , etc. , often referred to as HDMI 1.3 ) with the possibilities of supporting ethernet in the cable ( 100mbit ) or not.So there are : low-bandwidth no ethernet ( effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable ) high-bandwidth no ethernet ( effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable ) low-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernethigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernetNow , in reality , it 's already difficult to buy an HDMI 1.1 cable , and likely few going to make a low-bandwidth cable with ethernet added , since low-bandwidth cables are n't popular already.So that leaves two of these cables to decide between : HDMI 1.3 cablehigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet ( perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable ?
) and then there is one final cable , the wildcard , the automotive HDMI cable.So 3 cables to choose from , one of which is a weirdo cable ( automotive ) .I do n't think this will cause much of a problem.The options listed in the article , return channel , etc , are all things added to the spec that can be there for an HDMI 1.4 device but without needing a specialized cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 5 cables in the spec, but the descriptions are incorrect.There 4 cables which are the 4 possible combinations of low-bandwidth (often referred to as HDMI 1.1) and high-bandwidth (capable of 1080p/60, deep color, etc., often referred to as HDMI 1.3) with the possibilities of supporting ethernet in the cable (100mbit) or not.So there are:low-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable)high-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable)low-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernethigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernetNow, in reality, it's already difficult to buy an HDMI 1.1 cable, and likely few going to make a low-bandwidth cable with ethernet added, since low-bandwidth cables aren't popular already.So that leaves two of these cables to decide between:HDMI 1.3 cablehigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet (perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable?
)and then there is one final cable, the wildcard, the automotive HDMI cable.So 3 cables to choose from, one of which is a weirdo cable (automotive).I don't think this will cause much of a problem.The options listed in the article, return channel, etc, are all things added to the spec that can be there for an HDMI 1.4 device but without needing a specialized cable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155609</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1243705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's just not true. Something like a Ferrari, iPhone, XBOX, or such is just about the opposite of simple, ubiquitious, or affordable, yet each of those items is tremendously successful. That's 0 out of 3, and all of those are surviving quite well while ignoring your thesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's just not true .
Something like a Ferrari , iPhone , XBOX , or such is just about the opposite of simple , ubiquitious , or affordable , yet each of those items is tremendously successful .
That 's 0 out of 3 , and all of those are surviving quite well while ignoring your thesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's just not true.
Something like a Ferrari, iPhone, XBOX, or such is just about the opposite of simple, ubiquitious, or affordable, yet each of those items is tremendously successful.
That's 0 out of 3, and all of those are surviving quite well while ignoring your thesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127</id>
	<title>Yah but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they gold plated?</p><p>The TV manufacturers are simply screwing themselves over. They're dreaming. The new standard is going to be a computer screen attached to a PC streaming from youtube or similar.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they gold plated ? The TV manufacturers are simply screwing themselves over .
They 're dreaming .
The new standard is going to be a computer screen attached to a PC streaming from youtube or similar .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they gold plated?The TV manufacturers are simply screwing themselves over.
They're dreaming.
The new standard is going to be a computer screen attached to a PC streaming from youtube or similar.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156553</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Co0Ps</author>
	<datestamp>1243762380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you pulled that 16 gigabit/sec <a href="http://web.forret.com/tools/video\_fps.asp?width=1920&amp;height=1080&amp;fps=25&amp;space=rgb444&amp;depth=8" title="forret.com" rel="nofollow">number out of your ass</a> [forret.com]. Or maybe your definition of "HD video at high frame rates" is ~325 frames per second?</p><p>"unreliable communications over 500 meter"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and this is a problem how?</p><p>"using a shared-channel"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and this is a problem how?</p><p>"with LOTS of overhead"<br>
yeah 1.3\% overhead is "HUGE" using IP w/ standard 1.5k MTU (which could probably be raised even larger, especially when the devices are directly connected)</p><p>"and very high computational requirements"<br>
no. and compared to what really? if the protocol designers would be idiots and use TCP then yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you pulled that 16 gigabit/sec number out of your ass [ forret.com ] .
Or maybe your definition of " HD video at high frame rates " is ~ 325 frames per second ?
" unreliable communications over 500 meter " ...and this is a problem how ?
" using a shared-channel " ...and this is a problem how ?
" with LOTS of overhead " yeah 1.3 \ % overhead is " HUGE " using IP w/ standard 1.5k MTU ( which could probably be raised even larger , especially when the devices are directly connected ) " and very high computational requirements " no .
and compared to what really ?
if the protocol designers would be idiots and use TCP then yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you pulled that 16 gigabit/sec number out of your ass [forret.com].
Or maybe your definition of "HD video at high frame rates" is ~325 frames per second?
"unreliable communications over 500 meter" ...and this is a problem how?
"using a shared-channel" ...and this is a problem how?
"with LOTS of overhead"
yeah 1.3\% overhead is "HUGE" using IP w/ standard 1.5k MTU (which could probably be raised even larger, especially when the devices are directly connected)"and very high computational requirements"
no.
and compared to what really?
if the protocol designers would be idiots and use TCP then yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157781</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>markov23</author>
	<datestamp>1243780920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While your analysis is correct on 1,2 and 3 -- you are forgetting number 4 -- inisitance on use by media copyright holders.   HDMI did next to nothing over component video for quality - but blu ray players and now hd cable boxes require it to generate 1080p signals.

This is what this spec is all about -- if you take it apart -- its really DVI - an old monitor spec -- digital audio, and a truely broken copy protection scheme.

There are lots of ways to move video that work -- this is the one with DRM -- and it sadly will be here until the movie companies decide they dont need that protection any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While your analysis is correct on 1,2 and 3 -- you are forgetting number 4 -- inisitance on use by media copyright holders .
HDMI did next to nothing over component video for quality - but blu ray players and now hd cable boxes require it to generate 1080p signals .
This is what this spec is all about -- if you take it apart -- its really DVI - an old monitor spec -- digital audio , and a truely broken copy protection scheme .
There are lots of ways to move video that work -- this is the one with DRM -- and it sadly will be here until the movie companies decide they dont need that protection any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your analysis is correct on 1,2 and 3 -- you are forgetting number 4 -- inisitance on use by media copyright holders.
HDMI did next to nothing over component video for quality - but blu ray players and now hd cable boxes require it to generate 1080p signals.
This is what this spec is all about -- if you take it apart -- its really DVI - an old monitor spec -- digital audio, and a truely broken copy protection scheme.
There are lots of ways to move video that work -- this is the one with DRM -- and it sadly will be here until the movie companies decide they dont need that protection any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155411</id>
	<title>Re:Great buy why 1080p</title>
	<author>stine2469</author>
	<datestamp>1243703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>why didnt they just license svga????</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>why didnt they just license svga ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why didnt they just license svga???
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158371</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Wonderkid</author>
	<datestamp>1243786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just make ONE mini cable and you use that one on your home theatre, car etc? IE, start small and remain small. I dun understahhhnnnndddd!

(And why is Slashdot's new(ish) posting system SOOOo slow. You have to wait ages after clicking Submit button. Bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just make ONE mini cable and you use that one on your home theatre , car etc ?
IE , start small and remain small .
I dun understahhhnnnndddd !
( And why is Slashdot 's new ( ish ) posting system SOOOo slow .
You have to wait ages after clicking Submit button .
Bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just make ONE mini cable and you use that one on your home theatre, car etc?
IE, start small and remain small.
I dun understahhhnnnndddd!
(And why is Slashdot's new(ish) posting system SOOOo slow.
You have to wait ages after clicking Submit button.
Bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1243711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI,</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...nor having the most basic knowledge of the topic at hand, correct?</p><blockquote><div><p>wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this?</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, my, yes.  When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates from your DVD player to your TV, what you really want is a 1 Gigabit/sec standard, designed for unreliable communications over 500 meter distances, using a shared-channel, with LOTS of overhead, and very high computational requirements...</p><p>Your insight is... stunning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI , ...nor having the most basic knowledge of the topic at hand , correct ? would n't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this ? Oh , my , yes .
When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates from your DVD player to your TV , what you really want is a 1 Gigabit/sec standard , designed for unreliable communications over 500 meter distances , using a shared-channel , with LOTS of overhead , and very high computational requirements...Your insight is... stunning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI, ...nor having the most basic knowledge of the topic at hand, correct?wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this?Oh, my, yes.
When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates from your DVD player to your TV, what you really want is a 1 Gigabit/sec standard, designed for unreliable communications over 500 meter distances, using a shared-channel, with LOTS of overhead, and very high computational requirements...Your insight is... stunning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155785</id>
	<title>Agree!</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1243707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After watching friends buy new equipment because one piece was downgrading the signal, I swore HDMI off.  My HDTV is connected to our $50 (well $150 after upgrades) Dell Media Server via a VGA cable with an embedded sound cable.  Works wonderful and worry free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After watching friends buy new equipment because one piece was downgrading the signal , I swore HDMI off .
My HDTV is connected to our $ 50 ( well $ 150 after upgrades ) Dell Media Server via a VGA cable with an embedded sound cable .
Works wonderful and worry free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After watching friends buy new equipment because one piece was downgrading the signal, I swore HDMI off.
My HDTV is connected to our $50 (well $150 after upgrades) Dell Media Server via a VGA cable with an embedded sound cable.
Works wonderful and worry free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158301</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1243785600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen.</i></p><p>It's not that they are convinced it's that perfectly working solutions are HAMPERED by seamless or manufactured reasons. Some people have equipment in their living rooms which connects fine through traditional means and is a headache to connect through the one cable system called HDMI 1.3. DRM is not the only, but it is the main reason, followed by a continual stream of money. I have 2 such equipment that's why ALL my future TV's will have composite input until HDMI stops playing these little DRM games. (long story with a lot of finger pointing between motorola and toshiba, all I know is I'm stuck in the middle)</p><p>HDMI has a means of 2 way digital communication using existing 1.3 spec, so why would you even consider crippling it with 100Mbps Ethernet as an added feature? Why not use it as an additional data channel? The only answer is DRM. If I wish to hook up my TV to the Internet it will need an Ethernet port unless they start selling switches which have HDMI ports (very expensive solution from an equipment and cabling poit of view ). Otherwise the "appliance" that is connected to the TV with the HDMI cable can transfer any DATA through the digital HD Data channel. There is no reason why any new cable should be release at this time that should be called HDMI. It should be called HDMIE or HDMIS or HDMIHD or something else but not HDMI since it does not represent what has been marketed as HDMI. This is not about features. It's not about standards. It's about DRM and MONEY and how we can confuse the matter even more and sell more useless cables at exorbitant prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen.It 's not that they are convinced it 's that perfectly working solutions are HAMPERED by seamless or manufactured reasons .
Some people have equipment in their living rooms which connects fine through traditional means and is a headache to connect through the one cable system called HDMI 1.3 .
DRM is not the only , but it is the main reason , followed by a continual stream of money .
I have 2 such equipment that 's why ALL my future TV 's will have composite input until HDMI stops playing these little DRM games .
( long story with a lot of finger pointing between motorola and toshiba , all I know is I 'm stuck in the middle ) HDMI has a means of 2 way digital communication using existing 1.3 spec , so why would you even consider crippling it with 100Mbps Ethernet as an added feature ?
Why not use it as an additional data channel ?
The only answer is DRM .
If I wish to hook up my TV to the Internet it will need an Ethernet port unless they start selling switches which have HDMI ports ( very expensive solution from an equipment and cabling poit of view ) .
Otherwise the " appliance " that is connected to the TV with the HDMI cable can transfer any DATA through the digital HD Data channel .
There is no reason why any new cable should be release at this time that should be called HDMI .
It should be called HDMIE or HDMIS or HDMIHD or something else but not HDMI since it does not represent what has been marketed as HDMI .
This is not about features .
It 's not about standards .
It 's about DRM and MONEY and how we can confuse the matter even more and sell more useless cables at exorbitant prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen.It's not that they are convinced it's that perfectly working solutions are HAMPERED by seamless or manufactured reasons.
Some people have equipment in their living rooms which connects fine through traditional means and is a headache to connect through the one cable system called HDMI 1.3.
DRM is not the only, but it is the main reason, followed by a continual stream of money.
I have 2 such equipment that's why ALL my future TV's will have composite input until HDMI stops playing these little DRM games.
(long story with a lot of finger pointing between motorola and toshiba, all I know is I'm stuck in the middle)HDMI has a means of 2 way digital communication using existing 1.3 spec, so why would you even consider crippling it with 100Mbps Ethernet as an added feature?
Why not use it as an additional data channel?
The only answer is DRM.
If I wish to hook up my TV to the Internet it will need an Ethernet port unless they start selling switches which have HDMI ports (very expensive solution from an equipment and cabling poit of view ).
Otherwise the "appliance" that is connected to the TV with the HDMI cable can transfer any DATA through the digital HD Data channel.
There is no reason why any new cable should be release at this time that should be called HDMI.
It should be called HDMIE or HDMIS or HDMIHD or something else but not HDMI since it does not represent what has been marketed as HDMI.
This is not about features.
It's not about standards.
It's about DRM and MONEY and how we can confuse the matter even more and sell more useless cables at exorbitant prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155939</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1243709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM? Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked, we might...GASP!...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms, undermining traditional TV?</p></div><p>Bingo. HDMI is a giant sham.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM ?
Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked , we might...GASP ! ...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms , undermining traditional TV ? Bingo .
HDMI is a giant sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM?
Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked, we might...GASP!...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms, undermining traditional TV?Bingo.
HDMI is a giant sham.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157305</id>
	<title>don't rule out cat5...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243774260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just because the protocal flowing through cat5e or cat6 is designed to be robust doesn't mean that you shouldn't be using it for connecting your hardware.  If it's designed for long distance and unreliable conditions, why couldn't the spec be made to use a shorter distance and much faster protocol?  why did they have to re-invent the wheel?  I mean even if you say you're limited to 10Gbps over a single cat6, why not use 2 of them and figure out the data at the destination?  At the very least make it easy to connect the two together.</p><p>And who is talking about using a switch?  There's no need for that.  The data will not be going to multiple destinations, you just need a point to point network.</p><p>Hell, use fiber channel if you can't get the bandwidth you need out of cat6.  fiber patch is about $30 for a few feet and you don't need to worry about interference ever again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just because the protocal flowing through cat5e or cat6 is designed to be robust does n't mean that you should n't be using it for connecting your hardware .
If it 's designed for long distance and unreliable conditions , why could n't the spec be made to use a shorter distance and much faster protocol ?
why did they have to re-invent the wheel ?
I mean even if you say you 're limited to 10Gbps over a single cat6 , why not use 2 of them and figure out the data at the destination ?
At the very least make it easy to connect the two together.And who is talking about using a switch ?
There 's no need for that .
The data will not be going to multiple destinations , you just need a point to point network.Hell , use fiber channel if you ca n't get the bandwidth you need out of cat6 .
fiber patch is about $ 30 for a few feet and you do n't need to worry about interference ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because the protocal flowing through cat5e or cat6 is designed to be robust doesn't mean that you shouldn't be using it for connecting your hardware.
If it's designed for long distance and unreliable conditions, why couldn't the spec be made to use a shorter distance and much faster protocol?
why did they have to re-invent the wheel?
I mean even if you say you're limited to 10Gbps over a single cat6, why not use 2 of them and figure out the data at the destination?
At the very least make it easy to connect the two together.And who is talking about using a switch?
There's no need for that.
The data will not be going to multiple destinations, you just need a point to point network.Hell, use fiber channel if you can't get the bandwidth you need out of cat6.
fiber patch is about $30 for a few feet and you don't need to worry about interference ever again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155663</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243706040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since HDMI bandwidth starts at 4 Gbit/s and goes up from there, gigabit ethernet might fall slightly short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since HDMI bandwidth starts at 4 Gbit/s and goes up from there , gigabit ethernet might fall slightly short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since HDMI bandwidth starts at 4 Gbit/s and goes up from there, gigabit ethernet might fall slightly short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157845</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>markov23</author>
	<datestamp>1243781520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists.   HDMI is really all about copy protection.   I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection.  The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft, 200 ft etc ) we now are spending &gt; 500 for a piece of cable, we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal. This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen.  Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate.

And as long as I'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/End Rant</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists .
HDMI is really all about copy protection .
I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection .
The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft , 200 ft etc ) we now are spending &gt; 500 for a piece of cable , we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal .
This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen .
Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate .
And as long as I 'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades .
/End Rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists.
HDMI is really all about copy protection.
I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection.
The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft, 200 ft etc ) we now are spending &gt; 500 for a piece of cable, we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal.
This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen.
Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate.
And as long as I'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades.
/End Rant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156525</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243761780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Euro SCART  was the first to combine audio and all video formats in one cable. OK it was as thick as a kids wrist with connectors the size of a iPod mark 1 but that was the first format and it still works for 1080 signals but is only analog</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Euro SCART was the first to combine audio and all video formats in one cable .
OK it was as thick as a kids wrist with connectors the size of a iPod mark 1 but that was the first format and it still works for 1080 signals but is only analog</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Euro SCART  was the first to combine audio and all video formats in one cable.
OK it was as thick as a kids wrist with connectors the size of a iPod mark 1 but that was the first format and it still works for 1080 signals but is only analog</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</id>
	<title>Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>ISurfTooMuch</author>
	<datestamp>1243702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI, but wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this?  The data is all digital anyway, and networking technology is quite mature, so why did these folks feel the need to reinvent the wheel?  Right now, you have to worry about whether your new TV will have enough HDMI inputs for the devices you have or might get later, or you need to get an HDMI switcher.  With Ethernet, you just connect everything to a switch or router, and you're all set.  One connection per component is all you need, and, if you use a router, everything immediately gets connectivity to the home network or Internet.  And if a new component comes out that needs to talk to another component in a different way or using more bandwidth, that can all be handled in the firmware.  As long as you don't flood the local network with more data than it can handle, everything is fine, and the rest of the networked devices, including the router and cables, can stay exactly the same.</p><p>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM?  Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked, we might...GASP!...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms, undermining traditional TV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI , but would n't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this ?
The data is all digital anyway , and networking technology is quite mature , so why did these folks feel the need to reinvent the wheel ?
Right now , you have to worry about whether your new TV will have enough HDMI inputs for the devices you have or might get later , or you need to get an HDMI switcher .
With Ethernet , you just connect everything to a switch or router , and you 're all set .
One connection per component is all you need , and , if you use a router , everything immediately gets connectivity to the home network or Internet .
And if a new component comes out that needs to talk to another component in a different way or using more bandwidth , that can all be handled in the firmware .
As long as you do n't flood the local network with more data than it can handle , everything is fine , and the rest of the networked devices , including the router and cables , can stay exactly the same.Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM ?
Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked , we might...GASP ! ...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms , undermining traditional TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI, but wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this?
The data is all digital anyway, and networking technology is quite mature, so why did these folks feel the need to reinvent the wheel?
Right now, you have to worry about whether your new TV will have enough HDMI inputs for the devices you have or might get later, or you need to get an HDMI switcher.
With Ethernet, you just connect everything to a switch or router, and you're all set.
One connection per component is all you need, and, if you use a router, everything immediately gets connectivity to the home network or Internet.
And if a new component comes out that needs to talk to another component in a different way or using more bandwidth, that can all be handled in the firmware.
As long as you don't flood the local network with more data than it can handle, everything is fine, and the rest of the networked devices, including the router and cables, can stay exactly the same.Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM?
Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked, we might...GASP!...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms, undermining traditional TV?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mistake.  They are in fact releasing 5 + mini plug:</p><p>o Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60;<br>o High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification;<br>o Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;<br>o High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;<br>o Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.</p><p>But.  Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.1 cable and I don't even see those for sale anywhere.  I assume it's pin compatible.   So really the only new cables that people will encounter are:</p><p>1.4 Highspeed (1080p -&gt; 4k, 3D, Deep color etc)<br>1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet.</p><p>Automotive will be built into your car hidden away from view.   So unless you work at crutchfield you can ignore it.</p><p>Mini will be the same cables just with a differently sized plug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mistake .
They are in fact releasing 5 + mini plug : o Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60 ; o High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p , including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification ; o Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; o High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; o Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.But .
Standard HDMI cable = = HDMI 1.1 cable and I do n't even see those for sale anywhere .
I assume it 's pin compatible .
So really the only new cables that people will encounter are : 1.4 Highspeed ( 1080p - &gt; 4k , 3D , Deep color etc ) 1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet.Automotive will be built into your car hidden away from view .
So unless you work at crutchfield you can ignore it.Mini will be the same cables just with a differently sized plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mistake.
They are in fact releasing 5 + mini plug:o Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60;o High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification;o Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;o High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;o Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.But.
Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.1 cable and I don't even see those for sale anywhere.
I assume it's pin compatible.
So really the only new cables that people will encounter are:1.4 Highspeed (1080p -&gt; 4k, 3D, Deep color etc)1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet.Automotive will be built into your car hidden away from view.
So unless you work at crutchfield you can ignore it.Mini will be the same cables just with a differently sized plug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28171047</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1243884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><ol>
<li> Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60;</li><li> High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification;</li><li> Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;</li><li> High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;</li><li> Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.</li>
</ol><p>
<strong>(**)</strong> </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>[If ((P1=Standard\_HDMI\_cable) == (P2=HDMI\_1.1\_cable) &amp;&amp; pin\_compatible(P1,P2) ), [then]<br>\_[likely:]\_\_"only new cables people will encounter are:<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ - 1.4 Highspeed (1080p -&gt; 4k, 3D, Deep color etc)<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ - 1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>(Ignoring Automotive cables in the rest of this)</p><p>So you are saying, we'll 'only' see 3 cables (i.e. the 2 new variants you mention + old)?  I.e. you
think we won't see 'old+ethernet' combo?</p><p>First, I, hope you are right about no standard+ether.  However, if they admit to not needing 2 separate cables for standard, then how likely is it they would only justify 2-cables for "1.4-HS?</p><p>I don't know about the connector differences between the new and old -- but IF there is any difference
between Low and High (there wasn't for USB), there <b> <i>might</i> </b> be a different adapter format when including ethernet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Question.</b> <i>Could current connector format physically support full new capability set and maintain backward compatibility?  (I.e. is there enough extra space in current connector profile to allow for more connections?</i></p> </div><dl>
<dt> <strong>However</strong> it <em>seems</em> feasible,</dt><dd> <tt>\_\_<b>If</b>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_</tt>they wanted to provide best value to customers/consumers</dd><dd> <tt>\_\_\_\_\_<b>AND</b>\_\_\_</tt>were not focused on extraction of maximum money by consumer class affordability</dd> <dd> <tt>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ </tt> (<i>a heinous practice that gives inflated profits for less innovation to producers,</i></dd> <dd> <tt>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ </tt> <i>costing consumers more, and creating more junk in the world -- hurting world growth</i> </dd><dd> <tt>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ </tt> <i>and causing orders of magnitude more resource consumption</i>) </dd><dt> \_\_ to make only <b>ONE<b> (1) cable  <i>AND</i> to make <b>ONE</b> (1) adapter from the old HDMI plug to the new plug format,</b></b></dt><dd><p>
Is it not?</p></dd></dl><p>It would be so refreshing if the electronics industry could be responsible and move toward cable simplification rather than increased stratification that will cause much waste of world resources in overhead for perpetuating multiple cable formats that will only exist for the purpose of creating increased profit-points for cable manufacturers...</p><p>-l</p><div class="quote"><p><b>(**) - Why a technical commentary site like 'slashdot' makes it <b>**SO**</b> nearly impossible to do 'code' (which throws away indentation and spacing unless one uses filler chars like "\_"  (which are often specifically detected  (if really used to quote much code) as "garbage, filler or repetitive characters"))), is beyond me.  You'd think a technical site would at least allow *indenting*, -- especially within 'code' blocks,
not to mention 'Super' and 'Sub' scripting.  Even <a href="http://wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">Wordpress</a> [wordpress.com] allows <a href="http://wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">LaTeX</a> [wordpress.com] formulae to be inserted in
comments -- and a technical site like "/." doesn't?  That seems like a <b>glaring</b> deficiency (among others), (can't even &lt;u&gt;\_u\_n\_d\_e\_r\_l\_i\_n\_e\_&lt;/u&gt;, either!</b></p><p> <b>I wish 'Slashdot' would enter the modern age and allow formatting -- realizing that it can vastly improve readibility.  Heck -- limit it to non-anon posters to \_lower\_ abuse potential, but come on, this is the era of CSS3 + and we are stuck in pre-CSS, *deprecated* tag usage only....UG...</b></p><p> <b>Even the primitive markup is technically broken by XTML standards...(tags not closed where "/." thinks they
should be are auto-closed, even though their closing tag is later. (Had to put &lt;b&gt; in front of each paragraph within this quote to maintain 'bold', even though bold was set around the entire quote</b></p><p> <b>At least let us have more flexibility in our slashdot 'blogs'...we might actually be tempted to write more if we could communicate...(presuming minimal communication skills in the first place, after all, we are talking "/.".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)   ).</b></p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60 ; High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p , including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification ; Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device .
( * * ) [ If ( ( P1 = Standard \ _HDMI \ _cable ) = = ( P2 = HDMI \ _1.1 \ _cable ) &amp;&amp; pin \ _compatible ( P1,P2 ) ) , [ then ] \ _ [ likely : ] \ _ \ _ " only new cables people will encounter are : \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ - 1.4 Highspeed ( 1080p - &gt; 4k , 3D , Deep color etc ) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ - 1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet .
( Ignoring Automotive cables in the rest of this ) So you are saying , we 'll 'only ' see 3 cables ( i.e .
the 2 new variants you mention + old ) ?
I.e. you think we wo n't see 'old + ethernet ' combo ? First , I , hope you are right about no standard + ether .
However , if they admit to not needing 2 separate cables for standard , then how likely is it they would only justify 2-cables for " 1.4-HS ? I do n't know about the connector differences between the new and old -- but IF there is any difference between Low and High ( there was n't for USB ) , there might be a different adapter format when including ethernet .
Question. Could current connector format physically support full new capability set and maintain backward compatibility ?
( I.e. is there enough extra space in current connector profile to allow for more connections ?
However it seems feasible , \ _ \ _If \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _they wanted to provide best value to customers/consumers \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _AND \ _ \ _ \ _were not focused on extraction of maximum money by consumer class affordability \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ( a heinous practice that gives inflated profits for less innovation to producers , \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ costing consumers more , and creating more junk in the world -- hurting world growth \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ and causing orders of magnitude more resource consumption ) \ _ \ _ to make only ONE ( 1 ) cable AND to make ONE ( 1 ) adapter from the old HDMI plug to the new plug format , Is it not ? It would be so refreshing if the electronics industry could be responsible and move toward cable simplification rather than increased stratification that will cause much waste of world resources in overhead for perpetuating multiple cable formats that will only exist for the purpose of creating increased profit-points for cable manufacturers...-l ( * * ) - Why a technical commentary site like 'slashdot ' makes it * * SO * * nearly impossible to do 'code ' ( which throws away indentation and spacing unless one uses filler chars like " \ _ " ( which are often specifically detected ( if really used to quote much code ) as " garbage , filler or repetitive characters " ) ) ) , is beyond me .
You 'd think a technical site would at least allow * indenting * , -- especially within 'code ' blocks , not to mention 'Super ' and 'Sub ' scripting .
Even Wordpress [ wordpress.com ] allows LaTeX [ wordpress.com ] formulae to be inserted in comments -- and a technical site like " / .
" does n't ?
That seems like a glaring deficiency ( among others ) , ( ca n't even \ _u \ _n \ _d \ _e \ _r \ _l \ _i \ _n \ _e \ _ , either !
I wish 'Slashdot ' would enter the modern age and allow formatting -- realizing that it can vastly improve readibility .
Heck -- limit it to non-anon posters to \ _lower \ _ abuse potential , but come on , this is the era of CSS3 + and we are stuck in pre-CSS , * deprecated * tag usage only....UG... Even the primitive markup is technically broken by XTML standards... ( tags not closed where " / .
" thinks they should be are auto-closed , even though their closing tag is later .
( Had to put in front of each paragraph within this quote to maintain 'bold ' , even though bold was set around the entire quote At least let us have more flexibility in our slashdot 'blogs'...we might actually be tempted to write more if we could communicate... ( presuming minimal communication skills in the first place , after all , we are talking " /. " .
; ^ ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60; High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification; Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity; High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity; Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.
(**)  [If ((P1=Standard\_HDMI\_cable) == (P2=HDMI\_1.1\_cable) &amp;&amp; pin\_compatible(P1,P2) ), [then]\_[likely:]\_\_"only new cables people will encounter are:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ - 1.4 Highspeed (1080p -&gt; 4k, 3D, Deep color etc)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ - 1.4 Highspeed + Ethernet.
(Ignoring Automotive cables in the rest of this)So you are saying, we'll 'only' see 3 cables (i.e.
the 2 new variants you mention + old)?
I.e. you
think we won't see 'old+ethernet' combo?First, I, hope you are right about no standard+ether.
However, if they admit to not needing 2 separate cables for standard, then how likely is it they would only justify 2-cables for "1.4-HS?I don't know about the connector differences between the new and old -- but IF there is any difference
between Low and High (there wasn't for USB), there  might  be a different adapter format when including ethernet.
Question. Could current connector format physically support full new capability set and maintain backward compatibility?
(I.e. is there enough extra space in current connector profile to allow for more connections?
However it seems feasible, \_\_If\_\_\_\_\_\_\_they wanted to provide best value to customers/consumers \_\_\_\_\_AND\_\_\_were not focused on extraction of maximum money by consumer class affordability  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  (a heinous practice that gives inflated profits for less innovation to producers,  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  costing consumers more, and creating more junk in the world -- hurting world growth  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  and causing orders of magnitude more resource consumption)  \_\_ to make only ONE (1) cable  AND to make ONE (1) adapter from the old HDMI plug to the new plug format,
Is it not?It would be so refreshing if the electronics industry could be responsible and move toward cable simplification rather than increased stratification that will cause much waste of world resources in overhead for perpetuating multiple cable formats that will only exist for the purpose of creating increased profit-points for cable manufacturers...-l(**) - Why a technical commentary site like 'slashdot' makes it **SO** nearly impossible to do 'code' (which throws away indentation and spacing unless one uses filler chars like "\_"  (which are often specifically detected  (if really used to quote much code) as "garbage, filler or repetitive characters"))), is beyond me.
You'd think a technical site would at least allow *indenting*, -- especially within 'code' blocks,
not to mention 'Super' and 'Sub' scripting.
Even Wordpress [wordpress.com] allows LaTeX [wordpress.com] formulae to be inserted in
comments -- and a technical site like "/.
" doesn't?
That seems like a glaring deficiency (among others), (can't even \_u\_n\_d\_e\_r\_l\_i\_n\_e\_, either!
I wish 'Slashdot' would enter the modern age and allow formatting -- realizing that it can vastly improve readibility.
Heck -- limit it to non-anon posters to \_lower\_ abuse potential, but come on, this is the era of CSS3 + and we are stuck in pre-CSS, *deprecated* tag usage only....UG... Even the primitive markup is technically broken by XTML standards...(tags not closed where "/.
" thinks they
should be are auto-closed, even though their closing tag is later.
(Had to put  in front of each paragraph within this quote to maintain 'bold', even though bold was set around the entire quote At least let us have more flexibility in our slashdot 'blogs'...we might actually be tempted to write more if we could communicate...(presuming minimal communication skills in the first place, after all, we are talking "/.".
;^)   ).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157205</id>
	<title>Another day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243772760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...another victory for proprietary standarts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...another victory for proprietary standarts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...another victory for proprietary standarts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158347</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the the new spec will support closed captioning.</p><p>Despite the awesome visual and aural quality offered by this spec, the question remains whether those who are hearing impaired will be considered or left in the analog dust.</p><p>Someone fouled up when the "digital age" started rolling in.  Just google "closed captioning hdmi" or "hdmi closed captioning" or take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed\_captioning#HDTV\_interoperability\_issues</p><p>And by the way, be careful not to confuse subtitles with closed captioning.  They are different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the the new spec will support closed captioning.Despite the awesome visual and aural quality offered by this spec , the question remains whether those who are hearing impaired will be considered or left in the analog dust.Someone fouled up when the " digital age " started rolling in .
Just google " closed captioning hdmi " or " hdmi closed captioning " or take a look at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed \ _captioning # HDTV \ _interoperability \ _issuesAnd by the way , be careful not to confuse subtitles with closed captioning .
They are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the the new spec will support closed captioning.Despite the awesome visual and aural quality offered by this spec, the question remains whether those who are hearing impaired will be considered or left in the analog dust.Someone fouled up when the "digital age" started rolling in.
Just google "closed captioning hdmi" or "hdmi closed captioning" or take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed\_captioning#HDTV\_interoperability\_issuesAnd by the way, be careful not to confuse subtitles with closed captioning.
They are different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually set stupid article to fail.</p><p>They aren't releasing 72 different cables.</p><p>They're releasing 3:</p><p>1.4 (ethernet, 4k, etc)<br>1.4 Mini.  (Won't be used in a home theater.  This will come with your ZuneHD, Sony HD camcorder or cell phone.)<br>1.4 Automotive. (When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system?)</p><p>So in reality they're releasing 1 new cable that customers will ever encounter.  And it'll make things MUCH less confusing for the customers.  Buy a new home theater.  Plug an HDMI cable from your receiver to your XBox 720, BluRay Player and TV.  Done!  No ethernet cable into your xBox 720, BluRay Player and TV.    Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver.   Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually set stupid article to fail.They are n't releasing 72 different cables.They 're releasing 3 : 1.4 ( ethernet , 4k , etc ) 1.4 Mini .
( Wo n't be used in a home theater .
This will come with your ZuneHD , Sony HD camcorder or cell phone .
) 1.4 Automotive .
( When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system ?
) So in reality they 're releasing 1 new cable that customers will ever encounter .
And it 'll make things MUCH less confusing for the customers .
Buy a new home theater .
Plug an HDMI cable from your receiver to your XBox 720 , BluRay Player and TV .
Done ! No ethernet cable into your xBox 720 , BluRay Player and TV .
Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver .
Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually set stupid article to fail.They aren't releasing 72 different cables.They're releasing 3:1.4 (ethernet, 4k, etc)1.4 Mini.
(Won't be used in a home theater.
This will come with your ZuneHD, Sony HD camcorder or cell phone.
)1.4 Automotive.
(When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system?
)So in reality they're releasing 1 new cable that customers will ever encounter.
And it'll make things MUCH less confusing for the customers.
Buy a new home theater.
Plug an HDMI cable from your receiver to your XBox 720, BluRay Player and TV.
Done!  No ethernet cable into your xBox 720, BluRay Player and TV.
Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver.
Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155833</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1243708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh wait. The wireless HDMI spec is already here. Can anyone say Wireless USB 3?</p></div><p>Please. HDMI 1.3 (single link) is 10.2 Gb/s.</p><p>USB 2.0 and Wireless USB 1.0 offer just 480 Mb/s.<br>Wireless USB 1.1 expands this to 1 Gb/s.<br>USB 3.0 is slightly faster at 4.8 Gb/s, but then, it uses fiber optics.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES. So that has to help the bottom line.</p></div><p>You don't have to buy from monster cable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait .
The wireless HDMI spec is already here .
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3 ? Please .
HDMI 1.3 ( single link ) is 10.2 Gb/s.USB 2.0 and Wireless USB 1.0 offer just 480 Mb/s.Wireless USB 1.1 expands this to 1 Gb/s.USB 3.0 is slightly faster at 4.8 Gb/s , but then , it uses fiber optics .
NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES .
So that has to help the bottom line.You do n't have to buy from monster cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait.
The wireless HDMI spec is already here.
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3?Please.
HDMI 1.3 (single link) is 10.2 Gb/s.USB 2.0 and Wireless USB 1.0 offer just 480 Mb/s.Wireless USB 1.1 expands this to 1 Gb/s.USB 3.0 is slightly faster at 4.8 Gb/s, but then, it uses fiber optics.
NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES.
So that has to help the bottom line.You don't have to buy from monster cable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157231</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243773180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the intent here is to control how you use it. HDMI biggest feature is the ability for manufacturers to filter devices that can use the medium. People like you and me are not the targeted customers for this. Keep in mind that the music and movie industries have had an almost monopoly in electronic technologies until the mid-90 where those upstart computer makers said that CD ROM readers mass market was computers and they wanted it to work. Seen any hardware restriction on CD ROM readers since? No? Do you know how many HD standards are out there? 4? Think again. The HD scenery is a mess and this won't help.</p><p>The dinosaurs worked very hard, with their huge bank accounts, to screw DvD with the regional codes... Laws like DRM actually gives they the leverage they need to force new technologies into their stupid requirements by adding "security" features. Those features will be paid by the customers at large for a profit. The security features will aggravate the casual customer but will be bypassed by the savvy ones. Now laws are being made so that it will be a crime, as if you committed murder, to remove those "features". Why bother making security that won't aggravate the bulk of your customers? It's not like they have a choice.</p><p>Do you really think that a DvD is really worth 20$? I'll give you a hint: how much do you pay for a blank one? Same transport fee, slightly increase retail charge due to the floor estate it has to use in the store... The balance in price is 100\% "Intellectual Property". Think about it. Who gets the money? Think about it. The dinosaurs are in love with the "pay per use, every times, everywhere" idea. I just can't wait until they are made responsible for the quality of the content. As in, you are unhappy? You get refund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the intent here is to control how you use it .
HDMI biggest feature is the ability for manufacturers to filter devices that can use the medium .
People like you and me are not the targeted customers for this .
Keep in mind that the music and movie industries have had an almost monopoly in electronic technologies until the mid-90 where those upstart computer makers said that CD ROM readers mass market was computers and they wanted it to work .
Seen any hardware restriction on CD ROM readers since ?
No ? Do you know how many HD standards are out there ?
4 ? Think again .
The HD scenery is a mess and this wo n't help.The dinosaurs worked very hard , with their huge bank accounts , to screw DvD with the regional codes... Laws like DRM actually gives they the leverage they need to force new technologies into their stupid requirements by adding " security " features .
Those features will be paid by the customers at large for a profit .
The security features will aggravate the casual customer but will be bypassed by the savvy ones .
Now laws are being made so that it will be a crime , as if you committed murder , to remove those " features " .
Why bother making security that wo n't aggravate the bulk of your customers ?
It 's not like they have a choice.Do you really think that a DvD is really worth 20 $ ?
I 'll give you a hint : how much do you pay for a blank one ?
Same transport fee , slightly increase retail charge due to the floor estate it has to use in the store... The balance in price is 100 \ % " Intellectual Property " .
Think about it .
Who gets the money ?
Think about it .
The dinosaurs are in love with the " pay per use , every times , everywhere " idea .
I just ca n't wait until they are made responsible for the quality of the content .
As in , you are unhappy ?
You get refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the intent here is to control how you use it.
HDMI biggest feature is the ability for manufacturers to filter devices that can use the medium.
People like you and me are not the targeted customers for this.
Keep in mind that the music and movie industries have had an almost monopoly in electronic technologies until the mid-90 where those upstart computer makers said that CD ROM readers mass market was computers and they wanted it to work.
Seen any hardware restriction on CD ROM readers since?
No? Do you know how many HD standards are out there?
4? Think again.
The HD scenery is a mess and this won't help.The dinosaurs worked very hard, with their huge bank accounts, to screw DvD with the regional codes... Laws like DRM actually gives they the leverage they need to force new technologies into their stupid requirements by adding "security" features.
Those features will be paid by the customers at large for a profit.
The security features will aggravate the casual customer but will be bypassed by the savvy ones.
Now laws are being made so that it will be a crime, as if you committed murder, to remove those "features".
Why bother making security that won't aggravate the bulk of your customers?
It's not like they have a choice.Do you really think that a DvD is really worth 20$?
I'll give you a hint: how much do you pay for a blank one?
Same transport fee, slightly increase retail charge due to the floor estate it has to use in the store... The balance in price is 100\% "Intellectual Property".
Think about it.
Who gets the money?
Think about it.
The dinosaurs are in love with the "pay per use, every times, everywhere" idea.
I just can't wait until they are made responsible for the quality of the content.
As in, you are unhappy?
You get refund.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28159115</id>
	<title>DisplayPort FTW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DisplayPort FTW?</p><p>One cable, One standard, Many different applications. Someone tell my why HDMI is still a "standard" again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort FTW ? One cable , One standard , Many different applications .
Someone tell my why HDMI is still a " standard " again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort FTW?One cable, One standard, Many different applications.
Someone tell my why HDMI is still a "standard" again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157523</id>
	<title>Re:article summary is very poor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243777680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>low-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable)
high-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable)</p></div><p>It turns out that it's not <i>that</i> easy. Up to and including  HDMI 1.2a, the maximum bandwidth was 165MHz, then along came HDMI 1.3, introducing high bandwidth (340MHz) and low Bandwidth (74.25MHz) cables. I have not idea whatsoever what they were thinking. There's already a Plug type that's never been used ("B"), and they have been introducing incompatible audio formats that should have fit into some tagged/packetized  data stream even in HDMI 1.0. HDMI, with its many options is just a huge WTF to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>low-bandwidth no ethernet ( effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable ) high-bandwidth no ethernet ( effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable ) It turns out that it 's not that easy .
Up to and including HDMI 1.2a , the maximum bandwidth was 165MHz , then along came HDMI 1.3 , introducing high bandwidth ( 340MHz ) and low Bandwidth ( 74.25MHz ) cables .
I have not idea whatsoever what they were thinking .
There 's already a Plug type that 's never been used ( " B " ) , and they have been introducing incompatible audio formats that should have fit into some tagged/packetized data stream even in HDMI 1.0 .
HDMI , with its many options is just a huge WTF to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>low-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.1 cable)
high-bandwidth no ethernet (effectively an HDMI 1.3 cable)It turns out that it's not that easy.
Up to and including  HDMI 1.2a, the maximum bandwidth was 165MHz, then along came HDMI 1.3, introducing high bandwidth (340MHz) and low Bandwidth (74.25MHz) cables.
I have not idea whatsoever what they were thinking.
There's already a Plug type that's never been used ("B"), and they have been introducing incompatible audio formats that should have fit into some tagged/packetized  data stream even in HDMI 1.0.
HDMI, with its many options is just a huge WTF to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157371</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1243775460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do i really want to connect the xbox to the tv via ethernet?<br>Wouldn't it be more useful to connect it to, let's say an ethernet switch?<br>HDMI should stick to what it does with 1.3, video and sound, which is all the TV will require.... And there should still be the ability to split them out, my TV has fairly mediocre speakers and i would like to connect the sound output from my console to a separate amplifier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do i really want to connect the xbox to the tv via ethernet ? Would n't it be more useful to connect it to , let 's say an ethernet switch ? HDMI should stick to what it does with 1.3 , video and sound , which is all the TV will require.... And there should still be the ability to split them out , my TV has fairly mediocre speakers and i would like to connect the sound output from my console to a separate amplifier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do i really want to connect the xbox to the tv via ethernet?Wouldn't it be more useful to connect it to, let's say an ethernet switch?HDMI should stick to what it does with 1.3, video and sound, which is all the TV will require.... And there should still be the ability to split them out, my TV has fairly mediocre speakers and i would like to connect the sound output from my console to a separate amplifier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155913</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243709160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how does the ethernet work? Does it include a built in switch? or are we talking about a hub type of setup?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And ... how does the ethernet work ?
Does it include a built in switch ?
or are we talking about a hub type of setup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And ... how does the ethernet work?
Does it include a built in switch?
or are we talking about a hub type of setup?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158171</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're releasing 3:</p><p>1.4 (ethernet, 4k, etc)<br>1.4 Mini.  (Won't be used in a home theater.  This will come with your ZuneHD, Sony HD camcorder or cell phone.)<br>1.4 Automotive. (When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system?)</p></div><p>False. According to the press release [1] there are the following types:</p><p>Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60;<br>High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification;<br>Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;<br>High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;<br>Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.</p><p>On top of that, you have four different connector ends. Types A-C which were introduced in previous revisions, and the Type D ("micro") format in 1.4.</p><p>[1] http://hdmi.org/press/press\_release.aspx?prid=101</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're releasing 3 : 1.4 ( ethernet , 4k , etc ) 1.4 Mini .
( Wo n't be used in a home theater .
This will come with your ZuneHD , Sony HD camcorder or cell phone .
) 1.4 Automotive .
( When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system ? ) False .
According to the press release [ 1 ] there are the following types : Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60 ; High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p , including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification ; Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity ; Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.On top of that , you have four different connector ends .
Types A-C which were introduced in previous revisions , and the Type D ( " micro " ) format in 1.4 .
[ 1 ] http : //hdmi.org/press/press \ _release.aspx ? prid = 101</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're releasing 3:1.4 (ethernet, 4k, etc)1.4 Mini.
(Won't be used in a home theater.
This will come with your ZuneHD, Sony HD camcorder or cell phone.
)1.4 Automotive.
(When would you ever buy that thinking it would work in your home theater system?)False.
According to the press release [1] there are the following types:Standard HDMI Cable - supports data rates up to 1080i/60;High Speed HDMI Cable - supports data rates beyond 1080p, including Deep Color and all 3D formats of the new 1.4 specification;Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet - includes Ethernet connectivity;Automotive HDMI Cable - allows the connection of external HDMI-enabled devices to an in-vehicle HDMI device.On top of that, you have four different connector ends.
Types A-C which were introduced in previous revisions, and the Type D ("micro") format in 1.4.
[1] http://hdmi.org/press/press\_release.aspx?prid=101
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164387</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1243792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the video</p></div></blockquote><p>You really want to add a $200+ board to EVERY DEVICE in your home theater?</p><blockquote><div><p>Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.</p></div></blockquote><p>You have no idea the computational requirements of realtime highdef video compression.</p><p>And Best Buy isn't "anywhere".  Head over to Target and you'll get the cable for $10.  Go online and you'll get the cable for $5.</p><p>And you don't solve anything...  USB and Ethernet cables at Best Buy will continue to be unconscionably expensive...  Never mind the "Highdef Video" Ethernet cables they would surely produce.</p><p>You might as well advocate flying cars to get around the high mark-up of steering-wheel covers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the answer is quite obvious then , compress the videoYou really want to add a $ 200 + board to EVERY DEVICE in your home theater ? Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.You have no idea the computational requirements of realtime highdef video compression.And Best Buy is n't " anywhere " .
Head over to Target and you 'll get the cable for $ 10 .
Go online and you 'll get the cable for $ 5.And you do n't solve anything... USB and Ethernet cables at Best Buy will continue to be unconscionably expensive... Never mind the " Highdef Video " Ethernet cables they would surely produce.You might as well advocate flying cars to get around the high mark-up of steering-wheel covers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the videoYou really want to add a $200+ board to EVERY DEVICE in your home theater?Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.You have no idea the computational requirements of realtime highdef video compression.And Best Buy isn't "anywhere".
Head over to Target and you'll get the cable for $10.
Go online and you'll get the cable for $5.And you don't solve anything...  USB and Ethernet cables at Best Buy will continue to be unconscionably expensive...  Never mind the "Highdef Video" Ethernet cables they would surely produce.You might as well advocate flying cars to get around the high mark-up of steering-wheel covers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155085</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Reikk</author>
	<datestamp>1243700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from</htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158261</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother. Just use component video</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1243785240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>plus, there is no 'back channel' in component analog video.  therefore, no drm!  backchannel = evil.</p><p>hdmi has that handshake crap going on.  it causes me (and a lot of others) to have to reboot our tvs (really).  if you power off the tv and then power it on with a stereo (switched ac outlet is the use-case) then the tv loses 'link' with the hdmi peer (in my case a popcorn hour hdmi sender) and the tv needs bouncing before you get any hdmi signal!</p><p>you get NONE of these problems with analog comp-out wiring.  you do have to worry about analog wire quality and length of cable run - but at least no DRM anymore.  that may cause me to go 'back' to comp instead of hdmi.</p><p>also, comp is easier to switch (circuit level) than hdmi.  no license needed to build comp circuits (I build stuff for analog and digital audio but NOT digital video cause - well - they stop me).  analog is still more DIY friendly.</p><p>finally, keeping audio OUT of the video cable bundle is a good thing.  it really is.  regular spdif and the raw variants (dd5.1 and dts) over non-hdmi cabling is also just fine for us end consumers.  the 'true hd' stuff is fluff and massive overkill for end-user consumer use.</p><p>its good that some people still see the evil that hdmi did and are ok with 'going back' to comp video and spdif digital audio (sep wires, of course).</p><p>hdmi muxed audio and video.  that was a fatal flaw for us end users.  great for equip makers but fatal for us.</p><p>finally, there may be some hope to capture comp video at HD resolutions - for use in a myth-tv system.  but if your pay tv is ONLY in hdmi format, its very hard (if not impossible) to use that stream and record it via your myth box.  analog is the only real hope, I think, to integrate with myth and HD resolutions.  (other than free OTA or clear-qam; but I'm talking about wanting to myth your HBO/SHO etc streams, too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>plus , there is no 'back channel ' in component analog video .
therefore , no drm !
backchannel = evil.hdmi has that handshake crap going on .
it causes me ( and a lot of others ) to have to reboot our tvs ( really ) .
if you power off the tv and then power it on with a stereo ( switched ac outlet is the use-case ) then the tv loses 'link ' with the hdmi peer ( in my case a popcorn hour hdmi sender ) and the tv needs bouncing before you get any hdmi signal ! you get NONE of these problems with analog comp-out wiring .
you do have to worry about analog wire quality and length of cable run - but at least no DRM anymore .
that may cause me to go 'back ' to comp instead of hdmi.also , comp is easier to switch ( circuit level ) than hdmi .
no license needed to build comp circuits ( I build stuff for analog and digital audio but NOT digital video cause - well - they stop me ) .
analog is still more DIY friendly.finally , keeping audio OUT of the video cable bundle is a good thing .
it really is .
regular spdif and the raw variants ( dd5.1 and dts ) over non-hdmi cabling is also just fine for us end consumers .
the 'true hd ' stuff is fluff and massive overkill for end-user consumer use.its good that some people still see the evil that hdmi did and are ok with 'going back ' to comp video and spdif digital audio ( sep wires , of course ) .hdmi muxed audio and video .
that was a fatal flaw for us end users .
great for equip makers but fatal for us.finally , there may be some hope to capture comp video at HD resolutions - for use in a myth-tv system .
but if your pay tv is ONLY in hdmi format , its very hard ( if not impossible ) to use that stream and record it via your myth box .
analog is the only real hope , I think , to integrate with myth and HD resolutions .
( other than free OTA or clear-qam ; but I 'm talking about wanting to myth your HBO/SHO etc streams , too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plus, there is no 'back channel' in component analog video.
therefore, no drm!
backchannel = evil.hdmi has that handshake crap going on.
it causes me (and a lot of others) to have to reboot our tvs (really).
if you power off the tv and then power it on with a stereo (switched ac outlet is the use-case) then the tv loses 'link' with the hdmi peer (in my case a popcorn hour hdmi sender) and the tv needs bouncing before you get any hdmi signal!you get NONE of these problems with analog comp-out wiring.
you do have to worry about analog wire quality and length of cable run - but at least no DRM anymore.
that may cause me to go 'back' to comp instead of hdmi.also, comp is easier to switch (circuit level) than hdmi.
no license needed to build comp circuits (I build stuff for analog and digital audio but NOT digital video cause - well - they stop me).
analog is still more DIY friendly.finally, keeping audio OUT of the video cable bundle is a good thing.
it really is.
regular spdif and the raw variants (dd5.1 and dts) over non-hdmi cabling is also just fine for us end consumers.
the 'true hd' stuff is fluff and massive overkill for end-user consumer use.its good that some people still see the evil that hdmi did and are ok with 'going back' to comp video and spdif digital audio (sep wires, of course).hdmi muxed audio and video.
that was a fatal flaw for us end users.
great for equip makers but fatal for us.finally, there may be some hope to capture comp video at HD resolutions - for use in a myth-tv system.
but if your pay tv is ONLY in hdmi format, its very hard (if not impossible) to use that stream and record it via your myth box.
analog is the only real hope, I think, to integrate with myth and HD resolutions.
(other than free OTA or clear-qam; but I'm talking about wanting to myth your HBO/SHO etc streams, too).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162487</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1243776000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine, at full HDTV resolution, and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions (DRM) that HDMI brings to the table.</p></div><p>If you happen to have some media that triggers usage restrictions (such as downgrading) on HDMI, then it will definitely have the same quality when using VGA, assuming it'll work at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine , at full HDTV resolution , and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions ( DRM ) that HDMI brings to the table.If you happen to have some media that triggers usage restrictions ( such as downgrading ) on HDMI , then it will definitely have the same quality when using VGA , assuming it 'll work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine, at full HDTV resolution, and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions (DRM) that HDMI brings to the table.If you happen to have some media that triggers usage restrictions (such as downgrading) on HDMI, then it will definitely have the same quality when using VGA, assuming it'll work at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155133</id>
	<title>I would not be surprised...</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1243700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...If those 5 connector types came in 7 different versions...<p>
One that can only be used on Mondays, One for Tuesdays only..  etc... etc...</p><p> HDMI 1.4 spec = fail...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...If those 5 connector types came in 7 different versions.. . One that can only be used on Mondays , One for Tuesdays only.. etc... etc... HDMI 1.4 spec = fail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...If those 5 connector types came in 7 different versions...
One that can only be used on Mondays, One for Tuesdays only..  etc... etc... HDMI 1.4 spec = fail...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156073</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethernet? 1080p requires at least 2.9Gbit/s without considering audio or any overhead (1080*1920*60*24). HDMI 1.3a provides up to 10.2Gbit/s. I forgive you for not doing some basic fact checking on wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet ?
1080p requires at least 2.9Gbit/s without considering audio or any overhead ( 1080 * 1920 * 60 * 24 ) .
HDMI 1.3a provides up to 10.2Gbit/s .
I forgive you for not doing some basic fact checking on wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet?
1080p requires at least 2.9Gbit/s without considering audio or any overhead (1080*1920*60*24).
HDMI 1.3a provides up to 10.2Gbit/s.
I forgive you for not doing some basic fact checking on wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157633</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1243778940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheaper than <a href="http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c\_id=102&amp;cp\_id=10240&amp;cs\_id=1024008&amp;p\_id=3952&amp;seq=1&amp;format=2" title="monoprice.com">$1.94</a> [monoprice.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheaper than $ 1.94 [ monoprice.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheaper than $1.94 [monoprice.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158681</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI Ethernet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243788780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK,<br>1:  they're doing 100mbit over 2 pair, gbit requires 4 pair and thus a more complex and expensive cable, as well as 4 additional pins on the cable (meaning a non-backwards compatible configuration), or a non-standard implementation of etherchannl to get gbit over 2 pair, which would require custom NIC procesors based partly on 2G fiber technology (much higher license fees and much more expensive components).</p><p>2:  it's a TV (or stereo, or playstation, etc)...  The ONLY thing it's going to connect to is something to steam data from, or a server to play a game with.  HDTV streams fine over wireless, 100Mbit is MUCH faster.  Your internet connection might be 10Mbit if you're lucky, a max of 40 in some markets here in the US.  Some are even harping about 100mbit fiber to the home, but where are you going to pull a signal that fast from to a steaming device, and even then 100mbit still has you covered...</p><p>Going to gigabit might be the norm, but even in corporate networks, like an airport I recenlty sold 10G switch upgrades to, with hundreds of CCTV IP cameras, 400IP phones, and nearly a thousand data terminals, they still didn't max out their switch capacity except some select switches at night when they ran backups...  Do you think gigabit in your home really matters???  Do you think your motherboard with a cheapo gig port and no TOC processor can actually MAKE IT past 300 or 400mbit?  Even here in my house, where I run streaming HD to multiple rooms, Iand running backups nightly between 3 PCs and 2 Macs, and the nearly terabyte of data I have, I can rarely sattruate my bandwidth.  On a switch in your HT system, you'de be isolated for all that traffic anyway, unless a seriously high performance PC was daisychained off the last device in the HDMI ethercahnnel chain...</p><p>Going to gigabit was simply too costly and too complicated, and would have broken backwards compatability, for what, the 0.01\% of homes that could actually use it?  Don;t forget, each of the 1.4 compliant devices will still have a traditional ethernet port as well.  If you really want, you can plug each of those into a gig switch...  some of them WILL be gigabit, just so the manufacturer can satisfy your stupid request.  (pacifying the sheep is often simpler than teaching them not to be afraid).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK,1 : they 're doing 100mbit over 2 pair , gbit requires 4 pair and thus a more complex and expensive cable , as well as 4 additional pins on the cable ( meaning a non-backwards compatible configuration ) , or a non-standard implementation of etherchannl to get gbit over 2 pair , which would require custom NIC procesors based partly on 2G fiber technology ( much higher license fees and much more expensive components ) .2 : it 's a TV ( or stereo , or playstation , etc ) ... The ONLY thing it 's going to connect to is something to steam data from , or a server to play a game with .
HDTV streams fine over wireless , 100Mbit is MUCH faster .
Your internet connection might be 10Mbit if you 're lucky , a max of 40 in some markets here in the US .
Some are even harping about 100mbit fiber to the home , but where are you going to pull a signal that fast from to a steaming device , and even then 100mbit still has you covered...Going to gigabit might be the norm , but even in corporate networks , like an airport I recenlty sold 10G switch upgrades to , with hundreds of CCTV IP cameras , 400IP phones , and nearly a thousand data terminals , they still did n't max out their switch capacity except some select switches at night when they ran backups... Do you think gigabit in your home really matters ? ? ?
Do you think your motherboard with a cheapo gig port and no TOC processor can actually MAKE IT past 300 or 400mbit ?
Even here in my house , where I run streaming HD to multiple rooms , Iand running backups nightly between 3 PCs and 2 Macs , and the nearly terabyte of data I have , I can rarely sattruate my bandwidth .
On a switch in your HT system , you'de be isolated for all that traffic anyway , unless a seriously high performance PC was daisychained off the last device in the HDMI ethercahnnel chain...Going to gigabit was simply too costly and too complicated , and would have broken backwards compatability , for what , the 0.01 \ % of homes that could actually use it ?
Don ; t forget , each of the 1.4 compliant devices will still have a traditional ethernet port as well .
If you really want , you can plug each of those into a gig switch... some of them WILL be gigabit , just so the manufacturer can satisfy your stupid request .
( pacifying the sheep is often simpler than teaching them not to be afraid ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK,1:  they're doing 100mbit over 2 pair, gbit requires 4 pair and thus a more complex and expensive cable, as well as 4 additional pins on the cable (meaning a non-backwards compatible configuration), or a non-standard implementation of etherchannl to get gbit over 2 pair, which would require custom NIC procesors based partly on 2G fiber technology (much higher license fees and much more expensive components).2:  it's a TV (or stereo, or playstation, etc)...  The ONLY thing it's going to connect to is something to steam data from, or a server to play a game with.
HDTV streams fine over wireless, 100Mbit is MUCH faster.
Your internet connection might be 10Mbit if you're lucky, a max of 40 in some markets here in the US.
Some are even harping about 100mbit fiber to the home, but where are you going to pull a signal that fast from to a steaming device, and even then 100mbit still has you covered...Going to gigabit might be the norm, but even in corporate networks, like an airport I recenlty sold 10G switch upgrades to, with hundreds of CCTV IP cameras, 400IP phones, and nearly a thousand data terminals, they still didn't max out their switch capacity except some select switches at night when they ran backups...  Do you think gigabit in your home really matters???
Do you think your motherboard with a cheapo gig port and no TOC processor can actually MAKE IT past 300 or 400mbit?
Even here in my house, where I run streaming HD to multiple rooms, Iand running backups nightly between 3 PCs and 2 Macs, and the nearly terabyte of data I have, I can rarely sattruate my bandwidth.
On a switch in your HT system, you'de be isolated for all that traffic anyway, unless a seriously high performance PC was daisychained off the last device in the HDMI ethercahnnel chain...Going to gigabit was simply too costly and too complicated, and would have broken backwards compatability, for what, the 0.01\% of homes that could actually use it?
Don;t forget, each of the 1.4 compliant devices will still have a traditional ethernet port as well.
If you really want, you can plug each of those into a gig switch...  some of them WILL be gigabit, just so the manufacturer can satisfy your stupid request.
(pacifying the sheep is often simpler than teaching them not to be afraid).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160655</id>
	<title>Dear technologies companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243760460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fookyu, Composite, S-Video, components and DVI still work fine TYVM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fookyu , Composite , S-Video , components and DVI still work fine TYVM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fookyu, Composite, S-Video, components and DVI still work fine TYVM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1243801380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM?</p></div><p>Forgive me; I'm going to offer something other than 0MG iT'5 Ev1L DEE-ARE-EM zors.</p><p>Ethernet is slow.  10Gbit Ethernet is still exotic and costly.  Gigabit Ethernet is much too slow for digital video, and gigabit phys cost more than what high volume TV manufactures will tolerate.  An HDMI phy manufactured in 2003 sources or sinks 4.9Gbit/s.  Two subsequent revisions have doubled this twice to 10Gbit and then 20Gbit.  Basically HDMI provides an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the sort of common Ethernet you have in mind.  Uncompressed digital video and audio (what HDMI does) requires emense bandwidth.</p><p>Ethernet is designed for the LAN use case.  Consider the magic 300m minimum distance copper Ethernet is built around.  This distance is desirable because it covers a large percentage of facilities where LANs exist without additional infrastructure.  Among other things, signal frequency and copper (read cheap) cable construction are both bound by this.  HDMI has no such requirement and thus does not incur the cost to achieve it.</p><p>HDMI clearly distinguishes between sources and sinks and has different expectations of each.  Your digital TV will never suddenly begin transmitting Gbits of data someone will wish to render.  It is exclusively a sink.  Ethernet doesn't make provision for this sort of asymmetry which means both ends are peers and both suffer a certain minimum amount of complexity (read cost) because of it.</p><p>Ethernet is overly robust for digital TV.  There are no packet collisions between your cable box and your TV.  While HDMI does provide for error detection and correction, the remedy is radically different than what occurs on a LAN (retransmission usually.)  The bad data is just spaced.  The moment has passed and whatever pixel(s) or audio samples were corrupted are replaced by new bits before you perceive it (hopefully.)  Here is some language from HDMI 1.3, 7.7:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent. However, Sinks<br>should be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors. Sample<br>repetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.</p></div><p>You wouldn't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI.  It is an entirely distinct use case.</p><p>Finally, HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet.  Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing (your TV doesn't need a larger high speed buffer for instance.)  Recently so-called "Data Center Ethernet" has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications.  HDMI had this baked-in on day #1.</p><p>Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen.  That's the fashion around Slashdot, anyhow.  Don't believe it.  Those folks don't know what digital TV is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM ? Forgive me ; I 'm going to offer something other than 0MG iT'5 Ev1L DEE-ARE-EM zors.Ethernet is slow .
10Gbit Ethernet is still exotic and costly .
Gigabit Ethernet is much too slow for digital video , and gigabit phys cost more than what high volume TV manufactures will tolerate .
An HDMI phy manufactured in 2003 sources or sinks 4.9Gbit/s .
Two subsequent revisions have doubled this twice to 10Gbit and then 20Gbit .
Basically HDMI provides an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the sort of common Ethernet you have in mind .
Uncompressed digital video and audio ( what HDMI does ) requires emense bandwidth.Ethernet is designed for the LAN use case .
Consider the magic 300m minimum distance copper Ethernet is built around .
This distance is desirable because it covers a large percentage of facilities where LANs exist without additional infrastructure .
Among other things , signal frequency and copper ( read cheap ) cable construction are both bound by this .
HDMI has no such requirement and thus does not incur the cost to achieve it.HDMI clearly distinguishes between sources and sinks and has different expectations of each .
Your digital TV will never suddenly begin transmitting Gbits of data someone will wish to render .
It is exclusively a sink .
Ethernet does n't make provision for this sort of asymmetry which means both ends are peers and both suffer a certain minimum amount of complexity ( read cost ) because of it.Ethernet is overly robust for digital TV .
There are no packet collisions between your cable box and your TV .
While HDMI does provide for error detection and correction , the remedy is radically different than what occurs on a LAN ( retransmission usually .
) The bad data is just spaced .
The moment has passed and whatever pixel ( s ) or audio samples were corrupted are replaced by new bits before you perceive it ( hopefully .
) Here is some language from HDMI 1.3 , 7.7 : The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent .
However , Sinksshould be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors .
Samplerepetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.You would n't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI .
It is an entirely distinct use case.Finally , HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet .
Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing ( your TV does n't need a larger high speed buffer for instance .
) Recently so-called " Data Center Ethernet " has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications .
HDMI had this baked-in on day # 1.Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen .
That 's the fashion around Slashdot , anyhow .
Do n't believe it .
Those folks do n't know what digital TV is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM?Forgive me; I'm going to offer something other than 0MG iT'5 Ev1L DEE-ARE-EM zors.Ethernet is slow.
10Gbit Ethernet is still exotic and costly.
Gigabit Ethernet is much too slow for digital video, and gigabit phys cost more than what high volume TV manufactures will tolerate.
An HDMI phy manufactured in 2003 sources or sinks 4.9Gbit/s.
Two subsequent revisions have doubled this twice to 10Gbit and then 20Gbit.
Basically HDMI provides an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the sort of common Ethernet you have in mind.
Uncompressed digital video and audio (what HDMI does) requires emense bandwidth.Ethernet is designed for the LAN use case.
Consider the magic 300m minimum distance copper Ethernet is built around.
This distance is desirable because it covers a large percentage of facilities where LANs exist without additional infrastructure.
Among other things, signal frequency and copper (read cheap) cable construction are both bound by this.
HDMI has no such requirement and thus does not incur the cost to achieve it.HDMI clearly distinguishes between sources and sinks and has different expectations of each.
Your digital TV will never suddenly begin transmitting Gbits of data someone will wish to render.
It is exclusively a sink.
Ethernet doesn't make provision for this sort of asymmetry which means both ends are peers and both suffer a certain minimum amount of complexity (read cost) because of it.Ethernet is overly robust for digital TV.
There are no packet collisions between your cable box and your TV.
While HDMI does provide for error detection and correction, the remedy is radically different than what occurs on a LAN (retransmission usually.
)  The bad data is just spaced.
The moment has passed and whatever pixel(s) or audio samples were corrupted are replaced by new bits before you perceive it (hopefully.
)  Here is some language from HDMI 1.3, 7.7:The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent.
However, Sinksshould be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors.
Samplerepetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.You wouldn't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI.
It is an entirely distinct use case.Finally, HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet.
Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing (your TV doesn't need a larger high speed buffer for instance.
)  Recently so-called "Data Center Ethernet" has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications.
HDMI had this baked-in on day #1.Some people are convinced that DRM is the only concievable reason for creating HDMI and all other claims offered are a smokescreen.
That's the fashion around Slashdot, anyhow.
Don't believe it.
Those folks don't know what digital TV is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160431</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding a cpu into a receiver that's powerful enough to encode HD in real time seems like a terrible idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding a cpu into a receiver that 's powerful enough to encode HD in real time seems like a terrible idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding a cpu into a receiver that's powerful enough to encode HD in real time seems like a terrible idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162949</id>
	<title>Re:Yah but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that the current DTV mess marks the last gasp of broadcast TV as we have known it.  The tech for online TV is here, new internet connections speeds are (mostly) fast enough to cope, content is available (legit and otherwise), and awareness is growing.  Next time governments try to "upgrade" TV standards to increase sales I predict that a very large proportion of people simply won't bother changing.</p><p>Or at least I *hope* that's how things will turn out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the current DTV mess marks the last gasp of broadcast TV as we have known it .
The tech for online TV is here , new internet connections speeds are ( mostly ) fast enough to cope , content is available ( legit and otherwise ) , and awareness is growing .
Next time governments try to " upgrade " TV standards to increase sales I predict that a very large proportion of people simply wo n't bother changing.Or at least I * hope * that 's how things will turn out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the current DTV mess marks the last gasp of broadcast TV as we have known it.
The tech for online TV is here, new internet connections speeds are (mostly) fast enough to cope, content is available (legit and otherwise), and awareness is growing.
Next time governments try to "upgrade" TV standards to increase sales I predict that a very large proportion of people simply won't bother changing.Or at least I *hope* that's how things will turn out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28174873</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1243855500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Expensive" cables are really just a store markup problem.  See <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/02/7116.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [arstechnica.com] about the situation and you will see just how crazy it is out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Expensive " cables are really just a store markup problem .
See this article [ arstechnica.com ] about the situation and you will see just how crazy it is out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Expensive" cables are really just a store markup problem.
See this article [arstechnica.com] about the situation and you will see just how crazy it is out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28175291</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1243857840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone fouled up when the "digital age" started rolling in. Just google "closed captioning hdmi" or "hdmi closed captioning" or take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed\_captioning#HDTV\_interoperability\_issues" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed\_captioning#HDTV\_interoperability\_issues</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div><p>I recommend the HD-capable models of TiVos for this. They include decoding of closed captioning before sending to the display. I've only had problems with <i>Supernatural</i>, and that seems to have cleared up by the end of this season. They also don't interfere with the unit's own user interface graphics and can be displayed over all video outputs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone fouled up when the " digital age " started rolling in .
Just google " closed captioning hdmi " or " hdmi closed captioning " or take a look at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed \ _captioning # HDTV \ _interoperability \ _issues [ wikipedia.org ] I recommend the HD-capable models of TiVos for this .
They include decoding of closed captioning before sending to the display .
I 've only had problems with Supernatural , and that seems to have cleared up by the end of this season .
They also do n't interfere with the unit 's own user interface graphics and can be displayed over all video outputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone fouled up when the "digital age" started rolling in.
Just google "closed captioning hdmi" or "hdmi closed captioning" or take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed\_captioning#HDTV\_interoperability\_issues [wikipedia.org] I recommend the HD-capable models of TiVos for this.
They include decoding of closed captioning before sending to the display.
I've only had problems with Supernatural, and that seems to have cleared up by the end of this season.
They also don't interfere with the unit's own user interface graphics and can be displayed over all video outputs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156279</id>
	<title>Because it doesn't look as good</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1243713540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern displays are all digital. LCD, DLP, all digital technologies. The image source is then, of course, digital as well. Whether it is compressed MPEG-4 off a Blu-ray or a generated image off a 3D card, it is a digital source. So you go from digital to analogue and then back to digital. This loses quality, especially at high resolutions and colour depths. It is hard to build an ADC that does a really good job on a 100MHz 10-bit signal.</p><p>Try it with a good LCD (as in a high end one, not a $200 cheapie) sometime. Hook up DVI and VGA to the computer and switch back and forth. You'll get a better picture with DVI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern displays are all digital .
LCD , DLP , all digital technologies .
The image source is then , of course , digital as well .
Whether it is compressed MPEG-4 off a Blu-ray or a generated image off a 3D card , it is a digital source .
So you go from digital to analogue and then back to digital .
This loses quality , especially at high resolutions and colour depths .
It is hard to build an ADC that does a really good job on a 100MHz 10-bit signal.Try it with a good LCD ( as in a high end one , not a $ 200 cheapie ) sometime .
Hook up DVI and VGA to the computer and switch back and forth .
You 'll get a better picture with DVI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern displays are all digital.
LCD, DLP, all digital technologies.
The image source is then, of course, digital as well.
Whether it is compressed MPEG-4 off a Blu-ray or a generated image off a 3D card, it is a digital source.
So you go from digital to analogue and then back to digital.
This loses quality, especially at high resolutions and colour depths.
It is hard to build an ADC that does a really good job on a 100MHz 10-bit signal.Try it with a good LCD (as in a high end one, not a $200 cheapie) sometime.
Hook up DVI and VGA to the computer and switch back and forth.
You'll get a better picture with DVI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155725</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that VGA cable could carry 8 channel audio and ethernet you might have a point. With anyDVD and the like the DRM problem is largely moot.</p><p>I can't wait. One less cable connection to worry about. Increases wife/girlfriend acceptance factor for HTPC and other nerd devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that VGA cable could carry 8 channel audio and ethernet you might have a point .
With anyDVD and the like the DRM problem is largely moot.I ca n't wait .
One less cable connection to worry about .
Increases wife/girlfriend acceptance factor for HTPC and other nerd devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that VGA cable could carry 8 channel audio and ethernet you might have a point.
With anyDVD and the like the DRM problem is largely moot.I can't wait.
One less cable connection to worry about.
Increases wife/girlfriend acceptance factor for HTPC and other nerd devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161971</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1243771620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may want to check out <a href="http://www.monoprice.com/" title="monoprice.com">monoprice.com</a> [monoprice.com] if you want affordable HDMI cables (and others as well). A 10ft HDMI cable is under $5 and quantity discounts start at 2 rather than 10 or 50, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to check out monoprice.com [ monoprice.com ] if you want affordable HDMI cables ( and others as well ) .
A 10ft HDMI cable is under $ 5 and quantity discounts start at 2 rather than 10 or 50 , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to check out monoprice.com [monoprice.com] if you want affordable HDMI cables (and others as well).
A 10ft HDMI cable is under $5 and quantity discounts start at 2 rather than 10 or 50, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155485</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With A/V applications there are latency issues to be cognizant of. The big issue is keeping audio and video in sync. The best case scenario would be to stream the audio and video together to one destination. If the audio and video go to two locations then latency becomes an issue. Even then you have to deal with interactive latency issues for things like gaming consoles. With an ethernet based implementation there is nothing to prevent somebody from routing separate data streams through disparate switches and routers with sync lost for certain unless there is lost of buffering (not good for gaming).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With A/V applications there are latency issues to be cognizant of .
The big issue is keeping audio and video in sync .
The best case scenario would be to stream the audio and video together to one destination .
If the audio and video go to two locations then latency becomes an issue .
Even then you have to deal with interactive latency issues for things like gaming consoles .
With an ethernet based implementation there is nothing to prevent somebody from routing separate data streams through disparate switches and routers with sync lost for certain unless there is lost of buffering ( not good for gaming ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With A/V applications there are latency issues to be cognizant of.
The big issue is keeping audio and video in sync.
The best case scenario would be to stream the audio and video together to one destination.
If the audio and video go to two locations then latency becomes an issue.
Even then you have to deal with interactive latency issues for things like gaming consoles.
With an ethernet based implementation there is nothing to prevent somebody from routing separate data streams through disparate switches and routers with sync lost for certain unless there is lost of buffering (not good for gaming).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156535</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Nevynxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1243762080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver.   Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work.</p></div><p>Only if your receiver splits off the audio and uses it, rather than just passing the whole HDMI signal to the TV and ignoring it, as most low-0range systems do....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver .
Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work.Only if your receiver splits off the audio and uses it , rather than just passing the whole HDMI signal to the TV and ignoring it , as most low-0range systems do... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now need to run an audio out cable from your TV to your receiver.
Just one easy cable between every system and all the features should work.Only if your receiver splits off the audio and uses it, rather than just passing the whole HDMI signal to the TV and ignoring it, as most low-0range systems do....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161427</id>
	<title>Re:article summary is very poor</title>
	<author>Tony Hoyle</author>
	<datestamp>1243766760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So that leaves two of these cables to decide between:<br>HDMI 1.3 cable<br>high-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet (perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable?)</i></p><p>Clearly you've never talked to someone from marketing.</p><p>What you'll get is:</p><p>HDMI 1.3 cable (what we have now)<br>HDMI 1.4 cable (same as above, but with 'HDMI 1.4 Compatible' stamped on the package.  50\% more expensive)<br>HDMI 1.4 With Ethernet - basically the same as above but only sold at specialist stores costing 3x as much.</p><p>I don't see the point of the 'automotive' one at all... who in hell would want to attach a monitor to their car?  USB already covers all the non-video uses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that leaves two of these cables to decide between : HDMI 1.3 cablehigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet ( perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable ?
) Clearly you 've never talked to someone from marketing.What you 'll get is : HDMI 1.3 cable ( what we have now ) HDMI 1.4 cable ( same as above , but with 'HDMI 1.4 Compatible ' stamped on the package .
50 \ % more expensive ) HDMI 1.4 With Ethernet - basically the same as above but only sold at specialist stores costing 3x as much.I do n't see the point of the 'automotive ' one at all... who in hell would want to attach a monitor to their car ?
USB already covers all the non-video uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that leaves two of these cables to decide between:HDMI 1.3 cablehigh-bandwidth with 100mbit ethernet (perhaps to gain the popular name HDMI 1.4 cable?
)Clearly you've never talked to someone from marketing.What you'll get is:HDMI 1.3 cable (what we have now)HDMI 1.4 cable (same as above, but with 'HDMI 1.4 Compatible' stamped on the package.
50\% more expensive)HDMI 1.4 With Ethernet - basically the same as above but only sold at specialist stores costing 3x as much.I don't see the point of the 'automotive' one at all... who in hell would want to attach a monitor to their car?
USB already covers all the non-video uses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158203</id>
	<title>Re:use Ethernet - decoding wrong place</title>
	<author>anon mouse-cow-aard</author>
	<datestamp>1243784520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the parent post filled with references and precision, is that in all the technicalia, folks are losing sight of the purpose, and the equipment on hand.</p><p>There is a thing in a TV called... hmm... a tuner... The purpose of a tuner is to decode a signal sent over the air... in MPEG format.  All HDtv's readily decode MPEG in real-time.  That's what they are for.</p><p>The source media invariably store the data compressed, usually in some variation of MPEG format.  So stop de-compressing it on some external box, just feed the compressed stream, encrypted if you must.  Standardize the decode to be done by the television, and that's it.   scaling up dedicated hardware to de-code an MPEG stream is already standard stuff.</p><p>At worst, the external box could trans-code the stuff. Using a general purpose CPU that would be painful, but with the volumes here, dedicated hardware should be easily justified and dirt cheap.</p><p>If you do that, a 1080i stream is something like 6 mbits/second.  Go ahead, go to 1080p, you'll probably go to 20 mbits/second with sound and every bell and whistle imaginable. No matter the choice, 100 base-T would probably be fine, but go ahead and use gigabit, I can buy an 8 port switch for 70$, so it cannot be that expensive.</p><p>This is essentially exactly what mythtv does, and I have no problem watching an 1080i broadcast in any room in my house with an 100 BaseT connection and a decent cpu.  So the whole mess about sending decoded data is a complete red-herring.</p><p>Ethernet would be fine, simpler, and cheaper for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the parent post filled with references and precision , is that in all the technicalia , folks are losing sight of the purpose , and the equipment on hand.There is a thing in a TV called... hmm... a tuner... The purpose of a tuner is to decode a signal sent over the air... in MPEG format .
All HDtv 's readily decode MPEG in real-time .
That 's what they are for.The source media invariably store the data compressed , usually in some variation of MPEG format .
So stop de-compressing it on some external box , just feed the compressed stream , encrypted if you must .
Standardize the decode to be done by the television , and that 's it .
scaling up dedicated hardware to de-code an MPEG stream is already standard stuff.At worst , the external box could trans-code the stuff .
Using a general purpose CPU that would be painful , but with the volumes here , dedicated hardware should be easily justified and dirt cheap.If you do that , a 1080i stream is something like 6 mbits/second .
Go ahead , go to 1080p , you 'll probably go to 20 mbits/second with sound and every bell and whistle imaginable .
No matter the choice , 100 base-T would probably be fine , but go ahead and use gigabit , I can buy an 8 port switch for 70 $ , so it can not be that expensive.This is essentially exactly what mythtv does , and I have no problem watching an 1080i broadcast in any room in my house with an 100 BaseT connection and a decent cpu .
So the whole mess about sending decoded data is a complete red-herring.Ethernet would be fine , simpler , and cheaper for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the parent post filled with references and precision, is that in all the technicalia, folks are losing sight of the purpose, and the equipment on hand.There is a thing in a TV called... hmm... a tuner... The purpose of a tuner is to decode a signal sent over the air... in MPEG format.
All HDtv's readily decode MPEG in real-time.
That's what they are for.The source media invariably store the data compressed, usually in some variation of MPEG format.
So stop de-compressing it on some external box, just feed the compressed stream, encrypted if you must.
Standardize the decode to be done by the television, and that's it.
scaling up dedicated hardware to de-code an MPEG stream is already standard stuff.At worst, the external box could trans-code the stuff.
Using a general purpose CPU that would be painful, but with the volumes here, dedicated hardware should be easily justified and dirt cheap.If you do that, a 1080i stream is something like 6 mbits/second.
Go ahead, go to 1080p, you'll probably go to 20 mbits/second with sound and every bell and whistle imaginable.
No matter the choice, 100 base-T would probably be fine, but go ahead and use gigabit, I can buy an 8 port switch for 70$, so it cannot be that expensive.This is essentially exactly what mythtv does, and I have no problem watching an 1080i broadcast in any room in my house with an 100 BaseT connection and a decent cpu.
So the whole mess about sending decoded data is a complete red-herring.Ethernet would be fine, simpler, and cheaper for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157099</id>
	<title>Apple &amp; HDMI</title>
	<author>Conanymous Award</author>
	<datestamp>1243771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, now I think I understand why Apple shuns HDMI.

Why don't they just make one cable to rule them all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , now I think I understand why Apple shuns HDMI .
Why do n't they just make one cable to rule them all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, now I think I understand why Apple shuns HDMI.
Why don't they just make one cable to rule them all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407</id>
	<title>Why bother. Just use component video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when *gasp* analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec. Remember, a VGA cable (not quite as good as separate coax) is able to carry higher resolution and refresh rates than 1080p/60 and it could be all achieved on an early/mid 90's PC with a high end video card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when * gasp * analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec .
Remember , a VGA cable ( not quite as good as separate coax ) is able to carry higher resolution and refresh rates than 1080p/60 and it could be all achieved on an early/mid 90 's PC with a high end video card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when *gasp* analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec.
Remember, a VGA cable (not quite as good as separate coax) is able to carry higher resolution and refresh rates than 1080p/60 and it could be all achieved on an early/mid 90's PC with a high end video card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156025</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother. Just use component video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just how often are you pulling the cables off your tv?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just how often are you pulling the cables off your tv ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just how often are you pulling the cables off your tv?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157239</id>
	<title>Philips tried similar thing and failed</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Philips VCR and Philips TVs were able to "talk" eachother over SCART line, Philips released it with very high hopes since they actually made real use of it in terms of easiness to use. The result? Nobody cared.</p><p>Look at this for instance, Apple who has the largest media catalogue on planet to sell, such excellent consumer trust and image, releases Apple TV which is a different form of their (hdmi) dreams and consumers including Apple fans say... "oh well, I'd use a Mini". So, "smart device" isn't really new thing, it is something which has been tried over and over for years and always failed. Apple TV stays afloat because it is actually a dedicated OS X/iTunes box coming from Apple.</p><p>These guys have no connections in TV industry, even with electronics guys? A tip for them: As 2 more Gigabit ethernet Macs and possible Apple TV coming to house, I purchased a gigabit switch. That is what you need, at \_least\_ to have 1080 h264+5.1 AAC audio which is the current minimum experience people expect from "HD" thingie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Philips VCR and Philips TVs were able to " talk " eachother over SCART line , Philips released it with very high hopes since they actually made real use of it in terms of easiness to use .
The result ?
Nobody cared.Look at this for instance , Apple who has the largest media catalogue on planet to sell , such excellent consumer trust and image , releases Apple TV which is a different form of their ( hdmi ) dreams and consumers including Apple fans say... " oh well , I 'd use a Mini " .
So , " smart device " is n't really new thing , it is something which has been tried over and over for years and always failed .
Apple TV stays afloat because it is actually a dedicated OS X/iTunes box coming from Apple.These guys have no connections in TV industry , even with electronics guys ?
A tip for them : As 2 more Gigabit ethernet Macs and possible Apple TV coming to house , I purchased a gigabit switch .
That is what you need , at \ _least \ _ to have 1080 h264 + 5.1 AAC audio which is the current minimum experience people expect from " HD " thingie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Philips VCR and Philips TVs were able to "talk" eachother over SCART line, Philips released it with very high hopes since they actually made real use of it in terms of easiness to use.
The result?
Nobody cared.Look at this for instance, Apple who has the largest media catalogue on planet to sell, such excellent consumer trust and image, releases Apple TV which is a different form of their (hdmi) dreams and consumers including Apple fans say... "oh well, I'd use a Mini".
So, "smart device" isn't really new thing, it is something which has been tried over and over for years and always failed.
Apple TV stays afloat because it is actually a dedicated OS X/iTunes box coming from Apple.These guys have no connections in TV industry, even with electronics guys?
A tip for them: As 2 more Gigabit ethernet Macs and possible Apple TV coming to house, I purchased a gigabit switch.
That is what you need, at \_least\_ to have 1080 h264+5.1 AAC audio which is the current minimum experience people expect from "HD" thingie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157599</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1243778580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of one use-case for ethernet-hdmi that doesn't involve DRM, though I can think of a whole bunch that do involve DRM (come on, these are the guys that insisted on HDCP, how likely is it that they're *not* thinking about DRM scheme upgrades, device key blacklists, and online key verification?)</p><p>Firmware updates for your TV. At the moment, you need to tune into a particular digital TV channel at a particular time on a particular day to get the firmware update. Which is a right royal pain in the danglies if it fixes a particular bug - and yes, I have done this with a couple of samsung TVs. Being able to push an update via tftp, or even having it go and get it directly would be damn handy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of one use-case for ethernet-hdmi that does n't involve DRM , though I can think of a whole bunch that do involve DRM ( come on , these are the guys that insisted on HDCP , how likely is it that they 're * not * thinking about DRM scheme upgrades , device key blacklists , and online key verification ?
) Firmware updates for your TV .
At the moment , you need to tune into a particular digital TV channel at a particular time on a particular day to get the firmware update .
Which is a right royal pain in the danglies if it fixes a particular bug - and yes , I have done this with a couple of samsung TVs .
Being able to push an update via tftp , or even having it go and get it directly would be damn handy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of one use-case for ethernet-hdmi that doesn't involve DRM, though I can think of a whole bunch that do involve DRM (come on, these are the guys that insisted on HDCP, how likely is it that they're *not* thinking about DRM scheme upgrades, device key blacklists, and online key verification?
)Firmware updates for your TV.
At the moment, you need to tune into a particular digital TV channel at a particular time on a particular day to get the firmware update.
Which is a right royal pain in the danglies if it fixes a particular bug - and yes, I have done this with a couple of samsung TVs.
Being able to push an update via tftp, or even having it go and get it directly would be damn handy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107</id>
	<title>HDMI Ethernet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&#226; HDMI Ethernet Channel<br>"The HDMI 1.4 specification will add a data channel to the HDMI cable and will enable high-speed bi-directional communication. Connected devices that include this feature will be able to send and receive data via 100 Mb/sec Ethernet, making them instantly"... OBSOLETE</p><p>Thanks for coming out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  HDMI Ethernet Channel " The HDMI 1.4 specification will add a data channel to the HDMI cable and will enable high-speed bi-directional communication .
Connected devices that include this feature will be able to send and receive data via 100 Mb/sec Ethernet , making them instantly " ... OBSOLETEThanks for coming out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>â HDMI Ethernet Channel"The HDMI 1.4 specification will add a data channel to the HDMI cable and will enable high-speed bi-directional communication.
Connected devices that include this feature will be able to send and receive data via 100 Mb/sec Ethernet, making them instantly"... OBSOLETEThanks for coming out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the 11th revision of the HDMI specification in the less-than 7 year life of HDMI. Meanwhile, the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine, at full HDTV resolution, and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions (DRM) that HDMI brings to the table. Um, progress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the 11th revision of the HDMI specification in the less-than 7 year life of HDMI .
Meanwhile , the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine , at full HDTV resolution , and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions ( DRM ) that HDMI brings to the table .
Um , progress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the 11th revision of the HDMI specification in the less-than 7 year life of HDMI.
Meanwhile, the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine, at full HDTV resolution, and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions (DRM) that HDMI brings to the table.
Um, progress?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158499</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THANK YOU!  Someone who actually READ the details before making assumptions and reporting FUD.</p><p>Yes, the 1 new calbe will supoport ALL of the above mentioned features.  There are severral new connectors available for that cable, but they'll be obvious which to use;</p><p>automotive: duh, only applies to BUILT-IN car components and aftermarket add-ons.<br>Standard: all HT equipment for HDMI 1.4 will use this connector.  It's also backwards compatible with existing HDMI ports, so it can essentially replace all the cables sold today.<br>old mini connector: will only be used on HDMI 1.3 and older devices, as you already do today<br>new mini connector: will be used on all new mini devices. Most devices will come with this cable free in the box if they require its use, but it will be the only non-standard HDMI cable sold in stores, so it will be easy to spot...</p><p>There will not be a mini-mini cable as there are not conceivable configurations to connect a mini device to another mini, only to home or car AV equipment (and the inputs in cars for user devices will still be the standard HDMI 1.4 port found in your living room, not the proprietary automotive connector).</p><p>This is NOT confusing, it's just an excuse to bitch at Monster Cable.  To be honest, I like their existance...  Lesser folk who are to simple to read the spec on the cable will spend their money.  This solves 2 problems; it feeds the economy, and it seperates stupid people from their money, thereby preventing them from spending it on things that could otherwise be bad for the rest of us...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU !
Someone who actually READ the details before making assumptions and reporting FUD.Yes , the 1 new calbe will supoport ALL of the above mentioned features .
There are severral new connectors available for that cable , but they 'll be obvious which to use ; automotive : duh , only applies to BUILT-IN car components and aftermarket add-ons.Standard : all HT equipment for HDMI 1.4 will use this connector .
It 's also backwards compatible with existing HDMI ports , so it can essentially replace all the cables sold today.old mini connector : will only be used on HDMI 1.3 and older devices , as you already do todaynew mini connector : will be used on all new mini devices .
Most devices will come with this cable free in the box if they require its use , but it will be the only non-standard HDMI cable sold in stores , so it will be easy to spot...There will not be a mini-mini cable as there are not conceivable configurations to connect a mini device to another mini , only to home or car AV equipment ( and the inputs in cars for user devices will still be the standard HDMI 1.4 port found in your living room , not the proprietary automotive connector ) .This is NOT confusing , it 's just an excuse to bitch at Monster Cable .
To be honest , I like their existance... Lesser folk who are to simple to read the spec on the cable will spend their money .
This solves 2 problems ; it feeds the economy , and it seperates stupid people from their money , thereby preventing them from spending it on things that could otherwise be bad for the rest of us.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU!
Someone who actually READ the details before making assumptions and reporting FUD.Yes, the 1 new calbe will supoport ALL of the above mentioned features.
There are severral new connectors available for that cable, but they'll be obvious which to use;automotive: duh, only applies to BUILT-IN car components and aftermarket add-ons.Standard: all HT equipment for HDMI 1.4 will use this connector.
It's also backwards compatible with existing HDMI ports, so it can essentially replace all the cables sold today.old mini connector: will only be used on HDMI 1.3 and older devices, as you already do todaynew mini connector: will be used on all new mini devices.
Most devices will come with this cable free in the box if they require its use, but it will be the only non-standard HDMI cable sold in stores, so it will be easy to spot...There will not be a mini-mini cable as there are not conceivable configurations to connect a mini device to another mini, only to home or car AV equipment (and the inputs in cars for user devices will still be the standard HDMI 1.4 port found in your living room, not the proprietary automotive connector).This is NOT confusing, it's just an excuse to bitch at Monster Cable.
To be honest, I like their existance...  Lesser folk who are to simple to read the spec on the cable will spend their money.
This solves 2 problems; it feeds the economy, and it seperates stupid people from their money, thereby preventing them from spending it on things that could otherwise be bad for the rest of us...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155387</id>
	<title>Digital rights management, more like DigitalRights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Digital Rights Management, more like DigitalRightsFail amirite?
<br> <br>
<br>
god even I hate me</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital Rights Management , more like DigitalRightsFail amirite ?
god even I hate me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital Rights Management, more like DigitalRightsFail amirite?
god even I hate me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155591</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother. Just use component video</title>
	<author>FrostDust</author>
	<datestamp>1243705020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when *gasp* analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec.</p></div><p>The "proles" gobble up that one HDMI wire is neater and simple than Red-Blue-Green + optical, digital coax, or analog. Especially with the last choice, as you have five plugs all the same shape, going into five sockets right next to each other, and two of them are the exact same color.</p><p>Just because you think something sucks doesn't mean it's utterly without merit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when * gasp * analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec.The " proles " gobble up that one HDMI wire is neater and simple than Red-Blue-Green + optical , digital coax , or analog .
Especially with the last choice , as you have five plugs all the same shape , going into five sockets right next to each other , and two of them are the exact same color.Just because you think something sucks does n't mean it 's utterly without merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when *gasp* analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec.The "proles" gobble up that one HDMI wire is neater and simple than Red-Blue-Green + optical, digital coax, or analog.
Especially with the last choice, as you have five plugs all the same shape, going into five sockets right next to each other, and two of them are the exact same color.Just because you think something sucks doesn't mean it's utterly without merit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156155</id>
	<title>Products without HDMI would be vastly superior</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Refuse to use HDMI and any content that demands it. There are far better things to do with your time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Refuse to use HDMI and any content that demands it .
There are far better things to do with your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Refuse to use HDMI and any content that demands it.
There are far better things to do with your time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155081</id>
	<title>Linked article is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked article is wrong; it confuses the logical concept of data channels with physical cable/connector types. FAIL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked article is wrong ; it confuses the logical concept of data channels with physical cable/connector types .
FAIL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked article is wrong; it confuses the logical concept of data channels with physical cable/connector types.
FAIL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160073</id>
	<title>Re:what was wrong with DVI?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1243799340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't think DVI supports audio.  Aside from that there's not a lot of difference.  They're very similar standards with some degree of compatibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think DVI supports audio .
Aside from that there 's not a lot of difference .
They 're very similar standards with some degree of compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think DVI supports audio.
Aside from that there's not a lot of difference.
They're very similar standards with some degree of compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157247</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1243773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI is not simple.</p></div><p>Really, one simple plug from the sending device to the display device. I fail to see how that is not simple.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubiquity, Well I give it points here. It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.</p></div><p>Agree there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Affordable. Not a chance. Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.</p></div><p>You aren't serious are you? If you tell me you only buy only from Monster then there is no hope for you. I can get HDMI to HDMI and DIV to HDMI for around AU$8.00 and that is in Australia. Get Googling!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wireless HDMI would rock.</p></div><p>Your listening to too much hype. Wireless sounds good except you would have to a) Buy all new devices that communicated via wireless (expensive) or b) Buy wireless HDMI adaptors (also expensive and not available) and even then you could you would still be stuck with HDMI cable interconnects.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh wait. The wireless HDMI spec is already here. Can anyone say Wireless USB 3.</p></div><p>USB 3 has been defined I have yet to see a single USB 3 device although I don't think it will take too long. Wireless - I thought that was what Gigabit Ethernet was for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is not simple.Really , one simple plug from the sending device to the display device .
I fail to see how that is not simple.Ubiquity , Well I give it points here .
It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.Agree there.Affordable .
Not a chance .
Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.You are n't serious are you ?
If you tell me you only buy only from Monster then there is no hope for you .
I can get HDMI to HDMI and DIV to HDMI for around AU $ 8.00 and that is in Australia .
Get Googling ! Wireless HDMI would rock.Your listening to too much hype .
Wireless sounds good except you would have to a ) Buy all new devices that communicated via wireless ( expensive ) or b ) Buy wireless HDMI adaptors ( also expensive and not available ) and even then you could you would still be stuck with HDMI cable interconnects.Oh wait .
The wireless HDMI spec is already here .
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3.USB 3 has been defined I have yet to see a single USB 3 device although I do n't think it will take too long .
Wireless - I thought that was what Gigabit Ethernet was for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is not simple.Really, one simple plug from the sending device to the display device.
I fail to see how that is not simple.Ubiquity, Well I give it points here.
It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.Agree there.Affordable.
Not a chance.
Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.You aren't serious are you?
If you tell me you only buy only from Monster then there is no hope for you.
I can get HDMI to HDMI and DIV to HDMI for around AU$8.00 and that is in Australia.
Get Googling!Wireless HDMI would rock.Your listening to too much hype.
Wireless sounds good except you would have to a) Buy all new devices that communicated via wireless (expensive) or b) Buy wireless HDMI adaptors (also expensive and not available) and even then you could you would still be stuck with HDMI cable interconnects.Oh wait.
The wireless HDMI spec is already here.
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3.USB 3 has been defined I have yet to see a single USB 3 device although I don't think it will take too long.
Wireless - I thought that was what Gigabit Ethernet was for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155625</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1243705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDMI really wasn't complicated.  This time there are silly variants that shouldn't be there.</p><p>HDMI doesn't have to be expensive, it's not a fault of the standard, it's just marked up a lot by retailers.  It just takes a quick Google search to find far cheaper alternatives that do the job just as well.  I get them for something like $5 a piece on monoprice (Google hit #1).  The Monoprice cables work just fine.  Amazon has cheap HDMI cables that are reputable too.  The problem there is that B&amp;M retailers are trying to make money on accessories &amp; the hard sell because they often barely break even on the TV.  That's why they push the "replacement warranties" even if the box clearly says it has a longer stock warranty than what the store is offering.</p><p>The problem with hypothetical wireless HDMI is that retailers are going to be reluctant to stock products that offer it, because they make such a profit on the cable.  I've heard that this was why it was so hard to find wireless printers earlier on, retailers like to make money on the gold plated USB and Cat5e/6 cables and didn't want to sell anything that cut into that cash cow.</p><p>Wireless USB is not really a solution unless you add a lot of video crunching / uncrunching power.  It is 100Mbps and 480Mbps (depending on distance), HDMI is about 10Gbps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI really was n't complicated .
This time there are silly variants that should n't be there.HDMI does n't have to be expensive , it 's not a fault of the standard , it 's just marked up a lot by retailers .
It just takes a quick Google search to find far cheaper alternatives that do the job just as well .
I get them for something like $ 5 a piece on monoprice ( Google hit # 1 ) .
The Monoprice cables work just fine .
Amazon has cheap HDMI cables that are reputable too .
The problem there is that B&amp;M retailers are trying to make money on accessories &amp; the hard sell because they often barely break even on the TV .
That 's why they push the " replacement warranties " even if the box clearly says it has a longer stock warranty than what the store is offering.The problem with hypothetical wireless HDMI is that retailers are going to be reluctant to stock products that offer it , because they make such a profit on the cable .
I 've heard that this was why it was so hard to find wireless printers earlier on , retailers like to make money on the gold plated USB and Cat5e/6 cables and did n't want to sell anything that cut into that cash cow.Wireless USB is not really a solution unless you add a lot of video crunching / uncrunching power .
It is 100Mbps and 480Mbps ( depending on distance ) , HDMI is about 10Gbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI really wasn't complicated.
This time there are silly variants that shouldn't be there.HDMI doesn't have to be expensive, it's not a fault of the standard, it's just marked up a lot by retailers.
It just takes a quick Google search to find far cheaper alternatives that do the job just as well.
I get them for something like $5 a piece on monoprice (Google hit #1).
The Monoprice cables work just fine.
Amazon has cheap HDMI cables that are reputable too.
The problem there is that B&amp;M retailers are trying to make money on accessories &amp; the hard sell because they often barely break even on the TV.
That's why they push the "replacement warranties" even if the box clearly says it has a longer stock warranty than what the store is offering.The problem with hypothetical wireless HDMI is that retailers are going to be reluctant to stock products that offer it, because they make such a profit on the cable.
I've heard that this was why it was so hard to find wireless printers earlier on, retailers like to make money on the gold plated USB and Cat5e/6 cables and didn't want to sell anything that cut into that cash cow.Wireless USB is not really a solution unless you add a lot of video crunching / uncrunching power.
It is 100Mbps and 480Mbps (depending on distance), HDMI is about 10Gbps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155143</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1243700700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The electronics shop down the road will just come out with a new rev of their HDMI-whatever to DVI converter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The electronics shop down the road will just come out with a new rev of their HDMI-whatever to DVI converter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The electronics shop down the road will just come out with a new rev of their HDMI-whatever to DVI converter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157319</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243774500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>as long as there's not an intermittent problem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>as long as there 's not an intermittent problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as long as there's not an intermittent problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155639</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable.  You're not paying the extortionate prices for cables in the retail store, are you?</p><p>As for wireless HDMI, no, no, no.  That's just what we need.  Some huge bandwidth hog spewing unnecessary interference all over the little bit of spectrum we've got just because you find plugging one end of a cable into your blu-ray player and the other into your TV too confusing.  Save the wireless for things that actually benefit from being wireless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable .
You 're not paying the extortionate prices for cables in the retail store , are you ? As for wireless HDMI , no , no , no .
That 's just what we need .
Some huge bandwidth hog spewing unnecessary interference all over the little bit of spectrum we 've got just because you find plugging one end of a cable into your blu-ray player and the other into your TV too confusing .
Save the wireless for things that actually benefit from being wireless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable.
You're not paying the extortionate prices for cables in the retail store, are you?As for wireless HDMI, no, no, no.
That's just what we need.
Some huge bandwidth hog spewing unnecessary interference all over the little bit of spectrum we've got just because you find plugging one end of a cable into your blu-ray player and the other into your TV too confusing.
Save the wireless for things that actually benefit from being wireless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157597</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1243778520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you need to move the decoder into the display.  When playing back an HD stream, you have three choices:
<ol>
<li>Decode it on the computer (or set-top box, BD player, whatever), and stream the uncompressed video.</li>
<li>Decode it on the computer, then re-encode it as something else, and send the recompressed stream to the display (adds artefacts, needs a very powerful processor for the recompression).</li>
<li>Send the original stream straight to the display.  This works great, right up until someone creates a better video compression algorithm and makes everyone buy a new display to watch it on.</li>
</ol><p>
Not sure which of these you think is best, but most of the industry agrees option 1 is sensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you need to move the decoder into the display .
When playing back an HD stream , you have three choices : Decode it on the computer ( or set-top box , BD player , whatever ) , and stream the uncompressed video .
Decode it on the computer , then re-encode it as something else , and send the recompressed stream to the display ( adds artefacts , needs a very powerful processor for the recompression ) .
Send the original stream straight to the display .
This works great , right up until someone creates a better video compression algorithm and makes everyone buy a new display to watch it on .
Not sure which of these you think is best , but most of the industry agrees option 1 is sensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you need to move the decoder into the display.
When playing back an HD stream, you have three choices:

Decode it on the computer (or set-top box, BD player, whatever), and stream the uncompressed video.
Decode it on the computer, then re-encode it as something else, and send the recompressed stream to the display (adds artefacts, needs a very powerful processor for the recompression).
Send the original stream straight to the display.
This works great, right up until someone creates a better video compression algorithm and makes everyone buy a new display to watch it on.
Not sure which of these you think is best, but most of the industry agrees option 1 is sensible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1243764000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates </i> </p><p>Well, the answer is quite obvious then, <b>compress the video</b> </p><p>Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates Well , the answer is quite obvious then , compress the video Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates  Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the video Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157443</id>
	<title>Compression adds lag</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1243776600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the video</p></div><p>Interframe compression adds lag. This is not acceptable for playing video games unless they're turn-based. Intraframe compression (like MJPEG) adds only a few scanlines of lag in theory, but it still adds artifacts, and what kind of bitrate comes out from MJPEG at 1080p at 60 Hz?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the answer is quite obvious then , compress the videoInterframe compression adds lag .
This is not acceptable for playing video games unless they 're turn-based .
Intraframe compression ( like MJPEG ) adds only a few scanlines of lag in theory , but it still adds artifacts , and what kind of bitrate comes out from MJPEG at 1080p at 60 Hz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the videoInterframe compression adds lag.
This is not acceptable for playing video games unless they're turn-based.
Intraframe compression (like MJPEG) adds only a few scanlines of lag in theory, but it still adds artifacts, and what kind of bitrate comes out from MJPEG at 1080p at 60 Hz?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156299</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1243800180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er...<br>a) Why not use plain-old Ethernet for the data transfer between the TV and the video output device, and say "Thou shalt do nothing but run the cable between the TV and the video output device."?<br>b) Explain to me again how two different frames on a link on a LAN can travel differing paths from the same source to the same destination? We *are* assuming that you're not piping your home theater stuff over the Internet, yes? We are also assuming that the BOFH isn't changing the network topology on the fly, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er...a ) Why not use plain-old Ethernet for the data transfer between the TV and the video output device , and say " Thou shalt do nothing but run the cable between the TV and the video output device .
" ? b ) Explain to me again how two different frames on a link on a LAN can travel differing paths from the same source to the same destination ?
We * are * assuming that you 're not piping your home theater stuff over the Internet , yes ?
We are also assuming that the BOFH is n't changing the network topology on the fly , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er...a) Why not use plain-old Ethernet for the data transfer between the TV and the video output device, and say "Thou shalt do nothing but run the cable between the TV and the video output device.
"?b) Explain to me again how two different frames on a link on a LAN can travel differing paths from the same source to the same destination?
We *are* assuming that you're not piping your home theater stuff over the Internet, yes?
We are also assuming that the BOFH isn't changing the network topology on the fly, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059</id>
	<title>Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For HD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For HD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For HD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155139</id>
	<title>what was wrong with DVI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still using DVI into my TV, and it seems fine.  Supports high-def video and so on.  I'm not sure I get HDMI.  What's the point of it over DVI?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using DVI into my TV , and it seems fine .
Supports high-def video and so on .
I 'm not sure I get HDMI .
What 's the point of it over DVI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using DVI into my TV, and it seems fine.
Supports high-def video and so on.
I'm not sure I get HDMI.
What's the point of it over DVI?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333</id>
	<title>Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most successful products all have the same qualities.</p><p>1. Simple<br>2. Ubiquity<br>3. Affordable</p><p>HDMI is not simple.<br>Ubiquity,  Well I give it points here.  It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.<br>Affordable.  Not a chance.  Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.</p><p>1 out of 3 is not good enough to survive.  HDMI is setting it self up to be toppled of it's lofty perch.</p><p>Wireless HDMI would rock.<br>1. It would be simplish ( Some marketing guy would F&amp;*K this up with some screwed up we must know what you are broadcasting so we can tap your wallet. )<br>2. Ubiquity.  No real restriction here on what is on the channel.  So basically everything should work with everything else.<br>3. NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES.  So that has to help the bottom line.</p><p>Oh wait.  The wireless HDMI spec is already here.   Can anyone say Wireless USB 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most successful products all have the same qualities.1 .
Simple2. Ubiquity3 .
AffordableHDMI is not simple.Ubiquity , Well I give it points here .
It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.Affordable .
Not a chance .
Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.1 out of 3 is not good enough to survive .
HDMI is setting it self up to be toppled of it 's lofty perch.Wireless HDMI would rock.1 .
It would be simplish ( Some marketing guy would F&amp; * K this up with some screwed up we must know what you are broadcasting so we can tap your wallet .
) 2. Ubiquity .
No real restriction here on what is on the channel .
So basically everything should work with everything else.3 .
NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES .
So that has to help the bottom line.Oh wait .
The wireless HDMI spec is already here .
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most successful products all have the same qualities.1.
Simple2. Ubiquity3.
AffordableHDMI is not simple.Ubiquity,  Well I give it points here.
It really was the first popular spec to finally include video and audio on one cable.Affordable.
Not a chance.
Ridiculous prices for cables and accessories.1 out of 3 is not good enough to survive.
HDMI is setting it self up to be toppled of it's lofty perch.Wireless HDMI would rock.1.
It would be simplish ( Some marketing guy would F&amp;*K this up with some screwed up we must know what you are broadcasting so we can tap your wallet.
)2. Ubiquity.
No real restriction here on what is on the channel.
So basically everything should work with everything else.3.
NO HYPER EXPENSIVE CABLES.
So that has to help the bottom line.Oh wait.
The wireless HDMI spec is already here.
Can anyone say Wireless USB 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28159025</id>
	<title>Re:Yah but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243791540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find me a computer screen 30" or larger that's cheaper than a plasma or LCD TV.</p><p>Find me a computer screen over 24" that's cheaper if you include the TV tuner card needed to power said TV, let alone the PC to put the card in...</p><p>Find me any size computer screen that's cheaper if I don't plan to put a computer in the room with the TV at all.</p><p>Find me a universal remote that's $30 or less than can control boththe TC and the PC and the strereo receiver.  (my cable box COMES with one)</p><p>I DON'T CARE what you think.  I will NOT put a PC in EACH ROOM I have a TV in...  Today I have 7 TVs (Living Room, Kitchen, Master Bed, Man Cave, Guest Bed, and 2 kids rooms) Some of these rooms don;t even have a place I COULD put even a small form factor HTPC.  Putting a PC in each room (not to mention cabling, bandwidth costs, etc) would cost more than 5 times what I paid for all those TVs.  Add to that licensing, antivirus, and the MOUNTAIN of effort it would be to keep all those running ON TOP of our everyday PCs and laptops we have for non-TV purposes.  Also, the cable company fixes my box when I have an issue, they don't touch the PC.</p><p>I do have a PC in the main living room.  A Mac Mini.  We use it for watching ripped DVDs so i don't have to give the kids the originals and risk them getting scratched.  I DO NOT let them watch YouTube at all (too much porn and no valuable rating or blocking system).  In fact, they're got TVs in their bedrooms, but they DO NOT have access, and WILL NOT have access to a PC in their bedrooms, until they graduate high school...</p><p>No, we're not going to see Hulu, YouTube and others replace our TV viewing.  In fact, in a few years we'll all be watching IP TV with remote DVRs that record EVERY show automatically, and let us whatch what we want, when we want (with commercials of course, unless you pay a premium per episode to watch commercial free)  We'll still be able to fast forward like we do with regular DVRs today.  TWC is already testing this system now that the courts ruled in their favor and see it no more than timeshifting on a DVR in a home.  Even place shifting has been ruled completely legal, so we'll be seeing that soon too.</p><p>You see, the TV is just a specialized computer...  It already has access to media like you speak, and it's getting better and better access.  Computer monitors simply can;t compete because they come with the burden of the computer.  Even a TV without these features can get them with a $100-200 set top box...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find me a computer screen 30 " or larger that 's cheaper than a plasma or LCD TV.Find me a computer screen over 24 " that 's cheaper if you include the TV tuner card needed to power said TV , let alone the PC to put the card in...Find me any size computer screen that 's cheaper if I do n't plan to put a computer in the room with the TV at all.Find me a universal remote that 's $ 30 or less than can control boththe TC and the PC and the strereo receiver .
( my cable box COMES with one ) I DO N'T CARE what you think .
I will NOT put a PC in EACH ROOM I have a TV in... Today I have 7 TVs ( Living Room , Kitchen , Master Bed , Man Cave , Guest Bed , and 2 kids rooms ) Some of these rooms don ; t even have a place I COULD put even a small form factor HTPC .
Putting a PC in each room ( not to mention cabling , bandwidth costs , etc ) would cost more than 5 times what I paid for all those TVs .
Add to that licensing , antivirus , and the MOUNTAIN of effort it would be to keep all those running ON TOP of our everyday PCs and laptops we have for non-TV purposes .
Also , the cable company fixes my box when I have an issue , they do n't touch the PC.I do have a PC in the main living room .
A Mac Mini .
We use it for watching ripped DVDs so i do n't have to give the kids the originals and risk them getting scratched .
I DO NOT let them watch YouTube at all ( too much porn and no valuable rating or blocking system ) .
In fact , they 're got TVs in their bedrooms , but they DO NOT have access , and WILL NOT have access to a PC in their bedrooms , until they graduate high school...No , we 're not going to see Hulu , YouTube and others replace our TV viewing .
In fact , in a few years we 'll all be watching IP TV with remote DVRs that record EVERY show automatically , and let us whatch what we want , when we want ( with commercials of course , unless you pay a premium per episode to watch commercial free ) We 'll still be able to fast forward like we do with regular DVRs today .
TWC is already testing this system now that the courts ruled in their favor and see it no more than timeshifting on a DVR in a home .
Even place shifting has been ruled completely legal , so we 'll be seeing that soon too.You see , the TV is just a specialized computer... It already has access to media like you speak , and it 's getting better and better access .
Computer monitors simply can ; t compete because they come with the burden of the computer .
Even a TV without these features can get them with a $ 100-200 set top box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find me a computer screen 30" or larger that's cheaper than a plasma or LCD TV.Find me a computer screen over 24" that's cheaper if you include the TV tuner card needed to power said TV, let alone the PC to put the card in...Find me any size computer screen that's cheaper if I don't plan to put a computer in the room with the TV at all.Find me a universal remote that's $30 or less than can control boththe TC and the PC and the strereo receiver.
(my cable box COMES with one)I DON'T CARE what you think.
I will NOT put a PC in EACH ROOM I have a TV in...  Today I have 7 TVs (Living Room, Kitchen, Master Bed, Man Cave, Guest Bed, and 2 kids rooms) Some of these rooms don;t even have a place I COULD put even a small form factor HTPC.
Putting a PC in each room (not to mention cabling, bandwidth costs, etc) would cost more than 5 times what I paid for all those TVs.
Add to that licensing, antivirus, and the MOUNTAIN of effort it would be to keep all those running ON TOP of our everyday PCs and laptops we have for non-TV purposes.
Also, the cable company fixes my box when I have an issue, they don't touch the PC.I do have a PC in the main living room.
A Mac Mini.
We use it for watching ripped DVDs so i don't have to give the kids the originals and risk them getting scratched.
I DO NOT let them watch YouTube at all (too much porn and no valuable rating or blocking system).
In fact, they're got TVs in their bedrooms, but they DO NOT have access, and WILL NOT have access to a PC in their bedrooms, until they graduate high school...No, we're not going to see Hulu, YouTube and others replace our TV viewing.
In fact, in a few years we'll all be watching IP TV with remote DVRs that record EVERY show automatically, and let us whatch what we want, when we want (with commercials of course, unless you pay a premium per episode to watch commercial free)  We'll still be able to fast forward like we do with regular DVRs today.
TWC is already testing this system now that the courts ruled in their favor and see it no more than timeshifting on a DVR in a home.
Even place shifting has been ruled completely legal, so we'll be seeing that soon too.You see, the TV is just a specialized computer...  It already has access to media like you speak, and it's getting better and better access.
Computer monitors simply can;t compete because they come with the burden of the computer.
Even a TV without these features can get them with a $100-200 set top box...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28207545</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>anon mouse-cow-aard</author>
	<datestamp>1244119560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent. However, Sinks<br>should be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors. Sample<br>repetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.</p></div><p>You wouldn't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI.  It is an entirely distinct use case.</p><p>Finally, HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet.  Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing (your TV doesn't need a larger high speed buffer for instance.)  Recently so-called "Data Center Ethernet" has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications.  HDMI had this baked-in on day #1.</p></div><p>This sounds exactly like bell-heads a decade ago.<br>talking about packets being dropped, etc... focusing on minutae of a particular application, and pointing out that a general solution (a standard network) doesn't allow for pet application x.</p><p>The question here is not to compare both hardware solutions in terms of meeting that narrow problem of sending video.  The question is, do you need a specialized network, or will a general purpose one do?  If the general purpose one will work, it will be a better, cheaper, more flexible choice.</p><p>For the specific points about data loss. That is a clear demonstration of not understanding the general nature of ethernet/IP communications.<br>There are lossy transmission protocols, that is an application decision.  The standards people just could start from UDP instead of TCP if they don't want to guaranteed delivery.</p><p>It is virtually certain that the signal being received is compressed, either for transmission over the air, or a cable, or storage on a disk.<br>It is virtually certain that the output device will be a digital flat panel, with a processor, so going to some analog stream and coming back, is a merry go-round.</p><p>It would just be consistent to de-compress only at the end point, rather than inserting layers of trans-coding along the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent .
However , Sinksshould be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors .
Samplerepetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.You would n't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI .
It is an entirely distinct use case.Finally , HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet .
Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing ( your TV does n't need a larger high speed buffer for instance .
) Recently so-called " Data Center Ethernet " has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications .
HDMI had this baked-in on day # 1.This sounds exactly like bell-heads a decade ago.talking about packets being dropped , etc... focusing on minutae of a particular application , and pointing out that a general solution ( a standard network ) does n't allow for pet application x.The question here is not to compare both hardware solutions in terms of meeting that narrow problem of sending video .
The question is , do you need a specialized network , or will a general purpose one do ?
If the general purpose one will work , it will be a better , cheaper , more flexible choice.For the specific points about data loss .
That is a clear demonstration of not understanding the general nature of ethernet/IP communications.There are lossy transmission protocols , that is an application decision .
The standards people just could start from UDP instead of TCP if they do n't want to guaranteed delivery.It is virtually certain that the signal being received is compressed , either for transmission over the air , or a cable , or storage on a disk.It is virtually certain that the output device will be a digital flat panel , with a processor , so going to some analog stream and coming back , is a merry go-round.It would just be consistent to de-compress only at the end point , rather than inserting layers of trans-coding along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The behavior of the Sink after detecting an error is implementation-dependent.
However, Sinksshould be designed to prevent loud spurious noises from being generated due to errors.
Samplerepetition and interpolation are well known concealment techniques and are recommended.You wouldn't need to read many IEEE 802.whatever documents see just how far computer networking is from the design of HDMI.
It is an entirely distinct use case.Finally, HDMI provides timing guarantees that are totally absent in Ethernet.
Devices are made cheaper through accurate timing (your TV doesn't need a larger high speed buffer for instance.
)  Recently so-called "Data Center Ethernet" has emerged to address this so that Ethernet can be used in latency sensitive applications.
HDMI had this baked-in on day #1.This sounds exactly like bell-heads a decade ago.talking about packets being dropped, etc... focusing on minutae of a particular application, and pointing out that a general solution (a standard network) doesn't allow for pet application x.The question here is not to compare both hardware solutions in terms of meeting that narrow problem of sending video.
The question is, do you need a specialized network, or will a general purpose one do?
If the general purpose one will work, it will be a better, cheaper, more flexible choice.For the specific points about data loss.
That is a clear demonstration of not understanding the general nature of ethernet/IP communications.There are lossy transmission protocols, that is an application decision.
The standards people just could start from UDP instead of TCP if they don't want to guaranteed delivery.It is virtually certain that the signal being received is compressed, either for transmission over the air, or a cable, or storage on a disk.It is virtually certain that the output device will be a digital flat panel, with a processor, so going to some analog stream and coming back, is a merry go-round.It would just be consistent to de-compress only at the end point, rather than inserting layers of trans-coding along the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157605</id>
	<title>Seen USB lately?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243778580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least all HDMI connectors are male. You can buy a USB cable with <em>any combination</em> of ends including male or female A, B, Mini, or Micro (though female mini and micro connectors are unusual.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least all HDMI connectors are male .
You can buy a USB cable with any combination of ends including male or female A , B , Mini , or Micro ( though female mini and micro connectors are unusual .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least all HDMI connectors are male.
You can buy a USB cable with any combination of ends including male or female A, B, Mini, or Micro (though female mini and micro connectors are unusual.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155547</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just use Ethernet?</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1243704540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all about the DRM, they had to make something that would fool the industry players into thinking the DRM worked.  The only thing special about HDMI was to be HDMI complicit, a device has to send and receive some signal letting it know the line is not being tapped.  It's all completely silly, it's quite easy to order non-complicit HDMI recorders that only pretend to play along because god forbid you buy a movie and make a back up.   To get Hollywood to release their movies on blu-ray the blu-ray makers had produce something that would delude them into thinking they couldn't copy hi-def copies. This was back when that was the last thing they had to talk about.  "but but VHS was different, each copy degraded with use!  We can't let them have prefect hi-def copies!"  That's why it became the blu-ray stranded.  Of course it was the DRM.  <br> <br>
btw I laugh whenever I refer to HD-TV's as 'hi-def'   Lulz, our PC's have had better resolution for years and years <br> <br> Bluray is the new Laser Disk</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the DRM , they had to make something that would fool the industry players into thinking the DRM worked .
The only thing special about HDMI was to be HDMI complicit , a device has to send and receive some signal letting it know the line is not being tapped .
It 's all completely silly , it 's quite easy to order non-complicit HDMI recorders that only pretend to play along because god forbid you buy a movie and make a back up .
To get Hollywood to release their movies on blu-ray the blu-ray makers had produce something that would delude them into thinking they could n't copy hi-def copies .
This was back when that was the last thing they had to talk about .
" but but VHS was different , each copy degraded with use !
We ca n't let them have prefect hi-def copies !
" That 's why it became the blu-ray stranded .
Of course it was the DRM .
btw I laugh whenever I refer to HD-TV 's as 'hi-def ' Lulz , our PC 's have had better resolution for years and years Bluray is the new Laser Disk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the DRM, they had to make something that would fool the industry players into thinking the DRM worked.
The only thing special about HDMI was to be HDMI complicit, a device has to send and receive some signal letting it know the line is not being tapped.
It's all completely silly, it's quite easy to order non-complicit HDMI recorders that only pretend to play along because god forbid you buy a movie and make a back up.
To get Hollywood to release their movies on blu-ray the blu-ray makers had produce something that would delude them into thinking they couldn't copy hi-def copies.
This was back when that was the last thing they had to talk about.
"but but VHS was different, each copy degraded with use!
We can't let them have prefect hi-def copies!
"  That's why it became the blu-ray stranded.
Of course it was the DRM.
btw I laugh whenever I refer to HD-TV's as 'hi-def'   Lulz, our PC's have had better resolution for years and years   Bluray is the new Laser Disk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157317</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243774440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But. Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.1 cable and I don't even see those for sale anywhere. I assume it's pin compatible. So really the only new cables that people will encounter are"</p><p>Shouldn't that be Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.3(a/b)? Considering I haven't seen HDMI 1.1 in a while...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But .
Standard HDMI cable = = HDMI 1.1 cable and I do n't even see those for sale anywhere .
I assume it 's pin compatible .
So really the only new cables that people will encounter are " Should n't that be Standard HDMI cable = = HDMI 1.3 ( a/b ) ?
Considering I have n't seen HDMI 1.1 in a while.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But.
Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.1 cable and I don't even see those for sale anywhere.
I assume it's pin compatible.
So really the only new cables that people will encounter are"Shouldn't that be Standard HDMI cable == HDMI 1.3(a/b)?
Considering I haven't seen HDMI 1.1 in a while...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157199</id>
	<title>Re:Set fail...</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1243772700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i'm pretty sure that the point of this post is that we <i>can</i> complain about consumer choice..</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm pretty sure that the point of this post is that we can complain about consumer choice. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm pretty sure that the point of this post is that we can complain about consumer choice..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156589</id>
	<title>fall out</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1243762980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the new plugs fall out as easily (as the old ones)?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the new plugs fall out as easily ( as the old ones ) ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the new plugs fall out as easily (as the old ones)?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155253</id>
	<title>Ethernet needed for homes theatres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are having a lot of trouble putting $7,000 projectors in the middle of their 80 foot by 40 foot theatres adjoining the living room. An HDMI 1.3 cable won't run from there to the media room with all of the AV equipment. How can people live? Well, pretty soon we can be civilized again. We'll have HDMI Ethernet channel, using the technology of nerds to help Wall Street barons outfit their manses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are having a lot of trouble putting $ 7,000 projectors in the middle of their 80 foot by 40 foot theatres adjoining the living room .
An HDMI 1.3 cable wo n't run from there to the media room with all of the AV equipment .
How can people live ?
Well , pretty soon we can be civilized again .
We 'll have HDMI Ethernet channel , using the technology of nerds to help Wall Street barons outfit their manses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are having a lot of trouble putting $7,000 projectors in the middle of their 80 foot by 40 foot theatres adjoining the living room.
An HDMI 1.3 cable won't run from there to the media room with all of the AV equipment.
How can people live?
Well, pretty soon we can be civilized again.
We'll have HDMI Ethernet channel, using the technology of nerds to help Wall Street barons outfit their manses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155613</id>
	<title>Display Port?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to this problem is Display Port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to this problem is Display Port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to this problem is Display Port.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28166385</id>
	<title>Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243862640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares.  It's a wire carries a digital signal and that gets plugged and unplugged maybe once a year.  It meets the specs, and it gets the signal from one end to the other intact.  As for build quality, I can't tell the difference between it and the $50 cables the store sells.</p><p>The point is that HDMI cables need not be expensive.  If they are in your area don't blame the HDMI spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares .
It 's a wire carries a digital signal and that gets plugged and unplugged maybe once a year .
It meets the specs , and it gets the signal from one end to the other intact .
As for build quality , I ca n't tell the difference between it and the $ 50 cables the store sells.The point is that HDMI cables need not be expensive .
If they are in your area do n't blame the HDMI spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares.
It's a wire carries a digital signal and that gets plugged and unplugged maybe once a year.
It meets the specs, and it gets the signal from one end to the other intact.
As for build quality, I can't tell the difference between it and the $50 cables the store sells.The point is that HDMI cables need not be expensive.
If they are in your area don't blame the HDMI spec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164021</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28175291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28207545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28159025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28174873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28171047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28166385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_0128242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155367
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28171047
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157317
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155913
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158347
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28175291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157633
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157597
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28207545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28160073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28159025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28162487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28161971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28164021
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28166385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28174873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28157099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28158261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28156025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_0128242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_0128242.28155387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
