<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_2139232</id>
	<title>US DTV Patent Royalties Are $24&ndash;$40</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243942140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>shiroobi writes <i>"Wow!  <a href="http://www.robglidden.com/2009/06/us-dtv-royalties-24-to-40-dollars/">$24-40 USD a pop?</a> This would seem to mean that every TV is already marked up with this cost now that ATSC tuners are required. Looks like <a href="http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/20001/stop-the-funai-business-vizio-sues-over-patent-infringement">Vizio is fighting something like this already against Funai</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>shiroobi writes " Wow !
$ 24-40 USD a pop ?
This would seem to mean that every TV is already marked up with this cost now that ATSC tuners are required .
Looks like Vizio is fighting something like this already against Funai .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shiroobi writes "Wow!
$24-40 USD a pop?
This would seem to mean that every TV is already marked up with this cost now that ATSC tuners are required.
Looks like Vizio is fighting something like this already against Funai.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190735</id>
	<title>Summary</title>
	<author>Reckless Visionary</author>
	<datestamp>1243953900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly this summary has no information at all, provides no description of the issue to be discussed, and provides no content other than links to other sources.  Perhaps the submission could have contained:</p><p>- A description of the issue at hand<br>- A reason why an uninformed reader would care about patent royalties at 24-40 dollars (per what?)<br>- An explicit argument about why this is or is not a good thing</p><p>I have been a member of this website for years, and while I am as guilty of not reading the article(s) as the cliche suggest of most readers, I still do so if the summary has some, any, information as to why I should.  This summary provides no context whatsoever to evaluate the article's worth nor describes in any way it's content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly this summary has no information at all , provides no description of the issue to be discussed , and provides no content other than links to other sources .
Perhaps the submission could have contained : - A description of the issue at hand- A reason why an uninformed reader would care about patent royalties at 24-40 dollars ( per what ?
) - An explicit argument about why this is or is not a good thingI have been a member of this website for years , and while I am as guilty of not reading the article ( s ) as the cliche suggest of most readers , I still do so if the summary has some , any , information as to why I should .
This summary provides no context whatsoever to evaluate the article 's worth nor describes in any way it 's content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly this summary has no information at all, provides no description of the issue to be discussed, and provides no content other than links to other sources.
Perhaps the submission could have contained:- A description of the issue at hand- A reason why an uninformed reader would care about patent royalties at 24-40 dollars (per what?
)- An explicit argument about why this is or is not a good thingI have been a member of this website for years, and while I am as guilty of not reading the article(s) as the cliche suggest of most readers, I still do so if the summary has some, any, information as to why I should.
This summary provides no context whatsoever to evaluate the article's worth nor describes in any way it's content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190131</id>
	<title>That explains the $40 coupon</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1243948920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government is footing the bill for the patent fees.  The consumer then pays the actual cost of the device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is footing the bill for the patent fees .
The consumer then pays the actual cost of the device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is footing the bill for the patent fees.
The consumer then pays the actual cost of the device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1243947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Buy the patent and release it to the public.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can you elaborate a bit on how this is better than the current licensing scheme?  Perhaps there would be some economy of scale, giving the public a better overall price.  But it's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally (as tax burden) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none!</p><blockquote><div><p>This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.</p></div></blockquote><p>But buying patents with Federal funds is <em>preferable</em>?</p><p>-Peter</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy the patent and release it to the public.Can you elaborate a bit on how this is better than the current licensing scheme ?
Perhaps there would be some economy of scale , giving the public a better overall price .
But it 's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally ( as tax burden ) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none ! This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.But buying patents with Federal funds is preferable ? -Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy the patent and release it to the public.Can you elaborate a bit on how this is better than the current licensing scheme?
Perhaps there would be some economy of scale, giving the public a better overall price.
But it's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally (as tax burden) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none!This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.But buying patents with Federal funds is preferable?-Peter
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189745</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just in! Life isn't fair!<br> <br>To quote one of the world's most prestigious  and loved music artist, Micheal Jackson: <br> <br> <i>I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror. I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways. And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer... If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place, Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change</i></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in !
Life is n't fair !
To quote one of the world 's most prestigious and loved music artist , Micheal Jackson : I 'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror .
I 'm Asking Him To Change His Ways .
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer... If You Wan na Make The World A Better Place , Take A Look At Yourself , And Then Make A Change</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in!
Life isn't fair!
To quote one of the world's most prestigious  and loved music artist, Micheal Jackson:   I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror.
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways.
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer... If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place, Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>tweak13</author>
	<datestamp>1243947360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think DTV is bad, you should check out HD Radio.  Rather than use one of several much more open standards available to them, the FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity's crappy format.<br> <br>  Want to transmit in digital?  You need to use ibiquity's software, there is no other option.  Oh, and you owe them a few grand per year per transmitter as well.  Building a receiver?  You get the decoder chips from them, and pay them fees.  I hear they've finally let some other companies start building chips since they've been too inept to make one that will work in a portable device.<br> <br>It's too bad, I think digital radio could be pretty valuable as far as keeping radio relevant, but the FCC decided to screw everyone instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think DTV is bad , you should check out HD Radio .
Rather than use one of several much more open standards available to them , the FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity 's crappy format .
Want to transmit in digital ?
You need to use ibiquity 's software , there is no other option .
Oh , and you owe them a few grand per year per transmitter as well .
Building a receiver ?
You get the decoder chips from them , and pay them fees .
I hear they 've finally let some other companies start building chips since they 've been too inept to make one that will work in a portable device .
It 's too bad , I think digital radio could be pretty valuable as far as keeping radio relevant , but the FCC decided to screw everyone instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think DTV is bad, you should check out HD Radio.
Rather than use one of several much more open standards available to them, the FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity's crappy format.
Want to transmit in digital?
You need to use ibiquity's software, there is no other option.
Oh, and you owe them a few grand per year per transmitter as well.
Building a receiver?
You get the decoder chips from them, and pay them fees.
I hear they've finally let some other companies start building chips since they've been too inept to make one that will work in a portable device.
It's too bad, I think digital radio could be pretty valuable as far as keeping radio relevant, but the FCC decided to screw everyone instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28193107</id>
	<title>Re:Non-vital luxury item</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244022060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television? From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>And access to important news and weather information, though I guess a radio is sufficient for that (and runs on batteries). But I think in many "modern" places these days, a source of distraction is essential to deal with the utter bullshit that is society (I don't watch TV, just find other more interactive things to occupy my time with).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss something , or are we or are we not talking about television ?
From all the outrage being flung around , you 'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary , like food or medical care .
And access to important news and weather information , though I guess a radio is sufficient for that ( and runs on batteries ) .
But I think in many " modern " places these days , a source of distraction is essential to deal with the utter bullshit that is society ( I do n't watch TV , just find other more interactive things to occupy my time with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television?
From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.
And access to important news and weather information, though I guess a radio is sufficient for that (and runs on batteries).
But I think in many "modern" places these days, a source of distraction is essential to deal with the utter bullshit that is society (I don't watch TV, just find other more interactive things to occupy my time with).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190341</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1243950480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity's crappy format.</p><p>In defense of the FCC, there really was no other choice.  They had decided they wanted to reuse the same AM/FM band that had always been used, and iBiquity offered the only viable format.  Yes there was the option of Digital Radio Mondiale/Worldwide (DRM) but only for AM.  The FM version did not yet exist so that only left HD Radio.</p><p>Also I don't think HDR is all that bad.  It has the ability to support upto 7 channels on a single station, or 5.1 surround sound for a high-quality experience (like classical music).  It's a huge improvement over the nearly-100 year old analog technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity 's crappy format.In defense of the FCC , there really was no other choice .
They had decided they wanted to reuse the same AM/FM band that had always been used , and iBiquity offered the only viable format .
Yes there was the option of Digital Radio Mondiale/Worldwide ( DRM ) but only for AM .
The FM version did not yet exist so that only left HD Radio.Also I do n't think HDR is all that bad .
It has the ability to support upto 7 channels on a single station , or 5.1 surround sound for a high-quality experience ( like classical music ) .
It 's a huge improvement over the nearly-100 year old analog technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity's crappy format.In defense of the FCC, there really was no other choice.
They had decided they wanted to reuse the same AM/FM band that had always been used, and iBiquity offered the only viable format.
Yes there was the option of Digital Radio Mondiale/Worldwide (DRM) but only for AM.
The FM version did not yet exist so that only left HD Radio.Also I don't think HDR is all that bad.
It has the ability to support upto 7 channels on a single station, or 5.1 surround sound for a high-quality experience (like classical music).
It's a huge improvement over the nearly-100 year old analog technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</id>
	<title>Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public. This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A ) Need to remove that requirement , B ) Have someone invalidate the patent or C ) Buy the patent and release it to the public .
This is nothing more than government assisted extortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public.
This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28201943</id>
	<title>Re:Analog TV was better than Digital</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1244025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)</p><p>Number of stations with digital: 12</p></div></blockquote><p>Number of (english-language) stations I received via analog: 1 (Riverside, CA)</p><p>Number of stations with (currently-lower power) digital:  10</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number of stations I received via analog : 25 ( across three markets - Baltimore , Harrisburg , Philly ) Number of stations with digital : 12Number of ( english-language ) stations I received via analog : 1 ( Riverside , CA ) Number of stations with ( currently-lower power ) digital : 10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)Number of stations with digital: 12Number of (english-language) stations I received via analog: 1 (Riverside, CA)Number of stations with (currently-lower power) digital:  10
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625</id>
	<title>Non-vital luxury item</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1243953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television? From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.</p><p>Requiring people to pay extra for access to lowest common denominator spectacle -- and actually getting them to do it by the tens of millions -- isn't an outrage, it's a <i>hack</i>. With extra bonus points for genuine irony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss something , or are we or are we not talking about television ?
From all the outrage being flung around , you 'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary , like food or medical care.Requiring people to pay extra for access to lowest common denominator spectacle -- and actually getting them to do it by the tens of millions -- is n't an outrage , it 's a hack .
With extra bonus points for genuine irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television?
From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.Requiring people to pay extra for access to lowest common denominator spectacle -- and actually getting them to do it by the tens of millions -- isn't an outrage, it's a hack.
With extra bonus points for genuine irony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191913</id>
	<title>ATSC VSB-8 vs. DVB COFDM</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1243964340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really an old story, actually a continuation of the NTSC/PAL battles.  VSB is the acronym for vestigial sideband, a variation of the modulation scheme used for NTSC.  Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (COFDM) is a different and more complex modulation scheme used by Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) in Europe and Japan.  The general consensus at the time (way back in the last millennium) was that OFDM was better for penetration but the receivers were more expensive.  VSB had a greater service area but could not handle noise (especially reflections) as well.  In Europe and Japan, there are more large concentrations of people and DVB/COFDM made more sense.
<br> <br>
THE REAL REASON, however, was that European companies owned the patents on COFDM, and Zenith had the patent on VSB-8 (some say 8-VSB, 8 for the number of levels of signal amplitude used, there is also a 16-level version for cable that was never used).  So, America "bought American" and chose Zenith's solution.  Later, LG Electronics bought Zenith. LOL!
<br> <br>
Note: Bell Labs patented OFDM in 1966, but Philips and STM wrote patents covering DVB COFDM in 1987.  I am sure there are others too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really an old story , actually a continuation of the NTSC/PAL battles .
VSB is the acronym for vestigial sideband , a variation of the modulation scheme used for NTSC .
Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing ( COFDM ) is a different and more complex modulation scheme used by Digital Video Broadcast ( DVB ) in Europe and Japan .
The general consensus at the time ( way back in the last millennium ) was that OFDM was better for penetration but the receivers were more expensive .
VSB had a greater service area but could not handle noise ( especially reflections ) as well .
In Europe and Japan , there are more large concentrations of people and DVB/COFDM made more sense .
THE REAL REASON , however , was that European companies owned the patents on COFDM , and Zenith had the patent on VSB-8 ( some say 8-VSB , 8 for the number of levels of signal amplitude used , there is also a 16-level version for cable that was never used ) .
So , America " bought American " and chose Zenith 's solution .
Later , LG Electronics bought Zenith .
LOL ! Note : Bell Labs patented OFDM in 1966 , but Philips and STM wrote patents covering DVB COFDM in 1987 .
I am sure there are others too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really an old story, actually a continuation of the NTSC/PAL battles.
VSB is the acronym for vestigial sideband, a variation of the modulation scheme used for NTSC.
Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (COFDM) is a different and more complex modulation scheme used by Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) in Europe and Japan.
The general consensus at the time (way back in the last millennium) was that OFDM was better for penetration but the receivers were more expensive.
VSB had a greater service area but could not handle noise (especially reflections) as well.
In Europe and Japan, there are more large concentrations of people and DVB/COFDM made more sense.
THE REAL REASON, however, was that European companies owned the patents on COFDM, and Zenith had the patent on VSB-8 (some say 8-VSB, 8 for the number of levels of signal amplitude used, there is also a 16-level version for cable that was never used).
So, America "bought American" and chose Zenith's solution.
Later, LG Electronics bought Zenith.
LOL!
 
Note: Bell Labs patented OFDM in 1966, but Philips and STM wrote patents covering DVB COFDM in 1987.
I am sure there are others too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190777</id>
	<title>Re:How much do you people think early TVs were?</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1243954200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your B&amp;W TV (or radio) didn't quit working because color TVs came out.</p><p>On June 12 (unless it's delayed again), your analog OTA TV receiver becomes a brick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your B&amp;W TV ( or radio ) did n't quit working because color TVs came out.On June 12 ( unless it 's delayed again ) , your analog OTA TV receiver becomes a brick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your B&amp;W TV (or radio) didn't quit working because color TVs came out.On June 12 (unless it's delayed again), your analog OTA TV receiver becomes a brick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192301</id>
	<title>Re:Non-vital luxury item</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television? From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.</i> </p><p>The patent trolls have food <b>AND</b> medical care (big time!) well covered.  We pay a 10\% sales tax, outragous!  Imagine the outrage at a 10\% patent tax?  Money that does not go to our local schools or services.  Does anyone believe that HDTV would be such an impossible nut to crack that this level of compensation is required?  Enjoy your GM tomatos, FDA-approved/patent-encrusted blood thinners!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss something , or are we or are we not talking about television ?
From all the outrage being flung around , you 'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary , like food or medical care .
The patent trolls have food AND medical care ( big time !
) well covered .
We pay a 10 \ % sales tax , outragous !
Imagine the outrage at a 10 \ % patent tax ?
Money that does not go to our local schools or services .
Does anyone believe that HDTV would be such an impossible nut to crack that this level of compensation is required ?
Enjoy your GM tomatos , FDA-approved/patent-encrusted blood thinners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television?
From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.
The patent trolls have food AND medical care (big time!
) well covered.
We pay a 10\% sales tax, outragous!
Imagine the outrage at a 10\% patent tax?
Money that does not go to our local schools or services.
Does anyone believe that HDTV would be such an impossible nut to crack that this level of compensation is required?
Enjoy your GM tomatos, FDA-approved/patent-encrusted blood thinners!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192437</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense Now</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1243970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of the 162 comments, doing a search on both pages (when nested all comments -1 and up), I couldn't find the word "flag".</p><p>What I am seriously concerned about is whether this switch to digital is just a gradual slope to making sure rights holders can make sure we can't record what we want in the future.</p><p>Can't they just insert a flag eventually, and make sure these tuners we buy, will respect those flags, to prevent us from doing what many do, enjoy the Betamax decision?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of the 162 comments , doing a search on both pages ( when nested all comments -1 and up ) , I could n't find the word " flag " .What I am seriously concerned about is whether this switch to digital is just a gradual slope to making sure rights holders can make sure we ca n't record what we want in the future.Ca n't they just insert a flag eventually , and make sure these tuners we buy , will respect those flags , to prevent us from doing what many do , enjoy the Betamax decision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of the 162 comments, doing a search on both pages (when nested all comments -1 and up), I couldn't find the word "flag".What I am seriously concerned about is whether this switch to digital is just a gradual slope to making sure rights holders can make sure we can't record what we want in the future.Can't they just insert a flag eventually, and make sure these tuners we buy, will respect those flags, to prevent us from doing what many do, enjoy the Betamax decision?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191499</id>
	<title>Re:How much do you people think early TVs were?</title>
	<author>cjsm</author>
	<datestamp>1243960380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government has been giving out coupons for $40 or $50 (forget the exact amount) towards the cost of a converter box so you can pick up HD TV signals and watch them on an analog set.  I was  at my brother's house last weekend, and he had one hooked up to his old analog set, which he had stuck in his kitchen, since he had a HDTV set in his living room.  It was pulling in HD channels fine.  His girlfriend said with the coupon, the box cost them $10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has been giving out coupons for $ 40 or $ 50 ( forget the exact amount ) towards the cost of a converter box so you can pick up HD TV signals and watch them on an analog set .
I was at my brother 's house last weekend , and he had one hooked up to his old analog set , which he had stuck in his kitchen , since he had a HDTV set in his living room .
It was pulling in HD channels fine .
His girlfriend said with the coupon , the box cost them $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has been giving out coupons for $40 or $50 (forget the exact amount) towards the cost of a converter box so you can pick up HD TV signals and watch them on an analog set.
I was  at my brother's house last weekend, and he had one hooked up to his old analog set, which he had stuck in his kitchen, since he had a HDTV set in his living room.
It was pulling in HD channels fine.
His girlfriend said with the coupon, the box cost them $10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189731</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1243946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is the first time a gov't agency, in conjunction with industry, has selected a standard that requires royalty payments.</p><p>Is this the first time off the clue-train for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is the first time a gov't agency , in conjunction with industry , has selected a standard that requires royalty payments.Is this the first time off the clue-train for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is the first time a gov't agency, in conjunction with industry, has selected a standard that requires royalty payments.Is this the first time off the clue-train for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192035</id>
	<title>You know, there was a better way to do this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243965960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like all of this would sit better with people if the government did it right. It seems similar to the recent bump in required mpg of new cars. The government mandated that. Here, the government mandated a switch from NTSC to ATSC. Seems like everyone is tired of the government interfering with our lives, yet we keep voting for Democrats...</p><p>Here's how these government 'regulations' should have been handled:<br>1. over a period of time, increase the cost (tax) of new and renewed FCC licenses in the NTSC range until it becomes more feasible for broadcasters to go ATSC. as i recall, the Fed didn't get as much as they wanted from the auction of old spectrums...this would have been a sure-fire revenue generator.<br>2. over a period of time, increase the tax on gasoline until consumers WANT to buy 42 mpg cars. Again, sure-fire revenue generation that would help offset the bailout and other non-sense.</p><p>Tax. Taxes work. It's a time-tested, ancient tradition with well known outcomes. Why does our government refuse to be sensible?<br>1. Republic philosophy and conduct is sensible. This IS how THEY do government. We allow Democrats to smooz us. They do this with kind and caring words and always want to tax the rich and businesses...because the rich are a minority and businesses don't vote. They always try to avoid taxes that affect the individual...because individuals vote...and Democrats win...because WE ARE NOT SENSIBLE!<br>2. Or, perhaps, Democrats just don't know what they are doing...</p><p>PEOPLE! Please! Do us all a favor. Stop acting like this is high school. Stop voting for the popular person. Stop voting for the pretty/handsome person. Stop voting for the cool person. Stop voting for the person that makes you feel like they genuinely care about YOU, or the CHILDREN, or the DOWN-TRODDEN.</p><p>Start voting for the person that has no agenda. Start voting for the person that has no 'dream'. Start voting for the person that has no EGO to feed. This should be about Government, NOT POLITICS. Elected officials should not resemble Super Heroes in any way. When done right, Government is a boring thing. Vote for the boring people. Vote for the people that will simply do the job and go home. For those are the people with the proper objectivity to rule for the good of ALL THE PEOPLE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like all of this would sit better with people if the government did it right .
It seems similar to the recent bump in required mpg of new cars .
The government mandated that .
Here , the government mandated a switch from NTSC to ATSC .
Seems like everyone is tired of the government interfering with our lives , yet we keep voting for Democrats...Here 's how these government 'regulations ' should have been handled : 1. over a period of time , increase the cost ( tax ) of new and renewed FCC licenses in the NTSC range until it becomes more feasible for broadcasters to go ATSC .
as i recall , the Fed did n't get as much as they wanted from the auction of old spectrums...this would have been a sure-fire revenue generator.2 .
over a period of time , increase the tax on gasoline until consumers WANT to buy 42 mpg cars .
Again , sure-fire revenue generation that would help offset the bailout and other non-sense.Tax .
Taxes work .
It 's a time-tested , ancient tradition with well known outcomes .
Why does our government refuse to be sensible ? 1 .
Republic philosophy and conduct is sensible .
This IS how THEY do government .
We allow Democrats to smooz us .
They do this with kind and caring words and always want to tax the rich and businesses...because the rich are a minority and businesses do n't vote .
They always try to avoid taxes that affect the individual...because individuals vote...and Democrats win...because WE ARE NOT SENSIBLE ! 2 .
Or , perhaps , Democrats just do n't know what they are doing...PEOPLE !
Please ! Do us all a favor .
Stop acting like this is high school .
Stop voting for the popular person .
Stop voting for the pretty/handsome person .
Stop voting for the cool person .
Stop voting for the person that makes you feel like they genuinely care about YOU , or the CHILDREN , or the DOWN-TRODDEN.Start voting for the person that has no agenda .
Start voting for the person that has no 'dream' .
Start voting for the person that has no EGO to feed .
This should be about Government , NOT POLITICS .
Elected officials should not resemble Super Heroes in any way .
When done right , Government is a boring thing .
Vote for the boring people .
Vote for the people that will simply do the job and go home .
For those are the people with the proper objectivity to rule for the good of ALL THE PEOPLE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like all of this would sit better with people if the government did it right.
It seems similar to the recent bump in required mpg of new cars.
The government mandated that.
Here, the government mandated a switch from NTSC to ATSC.
Seems like everyone is tired of the government interfering with our lives, yet we keep voting for Democrats...Here's how these government 'regulations' should have been handled:1. over a period of time, increase the cost (tax) of new and renewed FCC licenses in the NTSC range until it becomes more feasible for broadcasters to go ATSC.
as i recall, the Fed didn't get as much as they wanted from the auction of old spectrums...this would have been a sure-fire revenue generator.2.
over a period of time, increase the tax on gasoline until consumers WANT to buy 42 mpg cars.
Again, sure-fire revenue generation that would help offset the bailout and other non-sense.Tax.
Taxes work.
It's a time-tested, ancient tradition with well known outcomes.
Why does our government refuse to be sensible?1.
Republic philosophy and conduct is sensible.
This IS how THEY do government.
We allow Democrats to smooz us.
They do this with kind and caring words and always want to tax the rich and businesses...because the rich are a minority and businesses don't vote.
They always try to avoid taxes that affect the individual...because individuals vote...and Democrats win...because WE ARE NOT SENSIBLE!2.
Or, perhaps, Democrats just don't know what they are doing...PEOPLE!
Please! Do us all a favor.
Stop acting like this is high school.
Stop voting for the popular person.
Stop voting for the pretty/handsome person.
Stop voting for the cool person.
Stop voting for the person that makes you feel like they genuinely care about YOU, or the CHILDREN, or the DOWN-TRODDEN.Start voting for the person that has no agenda.
Start voting for the person that has no 'dream'.
Start voting for the person that has no EGO to feed.
This should be about Government, NOT POLITICS.
Elected officials should not resemble Super Heroes in any way.
When done right, Government is a boring thing.
Vote for the boring people.
Vote for the people that will simply do the job and go home.
For those are the people with the proper objectivity to rule for the good of ALL THE PEOPLE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190973</id>
	<title>Re:Analog TV was better than Digital</title>
	<author>realperseus</author>
	<datestamp>1243955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)</p><p>Number of stations with digital: 12</p></div><p>I'm gonna pin your location around Edenton PA. here is the <a href="http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com\_wrapper&amp;Itemid=29&amp;q=id\%3D249dad075dc2b8" title="tvfool.com" rel="nofollow">TV fool chart</a> [tvfool.com].</p><p>

Looking at that chart I'd recommend a Channel Master 4228HD, or if wind load on the antenna is an issue, a fringe style Yagi. Use a rotor. Receive 22 digital channels.. .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number of stations I received via analog : 25 ( across three markets - Baltimore , Harrisburg , Philly ) Number of stations with digital : 12I 'm gon na pin your location around Edenton PA. here is the TV fool chart [ tvfool.com ] .
Looking at that chart I 'd recommend a Channel Master 4228HD , or if wind load on the antenna is an issue , a fringe style Yagi .
Use a rotor .
Receive 22 digital channels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)Number of stations with digital: 12I'm gonna pin your location around Edenton PA. here is the TV fool chart [tvfool.com].
Looking at that chart I'd recommend a Channel Master 4228HD, or if wind load on the antenna is an issue, a fringe style Yagi.
Use a rotor.
Receive 22 digital channels.. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191129</id>
	<title>Re:Analog TV was better than Digital</title>
	<author>tweak13</author>
	<datestamp>1243957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number of stations I received via analog:  7

Number of stations I receive via digital:  18

Yeah I'm counting subchannels, but it's all programming I couldn't get before so it seems equivalent to a new station to me.  Eight of those digital stations are HD resolutions and a lot superior to the picture I could get before.  I'm sorry that things haven't worked out for you in the transition, but I'm quite happy with how things have turned out for me.  Most people I know in other markets are likewise impressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number of stations I received via analog : 7 Number of stations I receive via digital : 18 Yeah I 'm counting subchannels , but it 's all programming I could n't get before so it seems equivalent to a new station to me .
Eight of those digital stations are HD resolutions and a lot superior to the picture I could get before .
I 'm sorry that things have n't worked out for you in the transition , but I 'm quite happy with how things have turned out for me .
Most people I know in other markets are likewise impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number of stations I received via analog:  7

Number of stations I receive via digital:  18

Yeah I'm counting subchannels, but it's all programming I couldn't get before so it seems equivalent to a new station to me.
Eight of those digital stations are HD resolutions and a lot superior to the picture I could get before.
I'm sorry that things haven't worked out for you in the transition, but I'm quite happy with how things have turned out for me.
Most people I know in other markets are likewise impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190529</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243952160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please elaborate on the frustrations of using a MythTV PC for recording.  The only VCR I've ever seen with an integrated ATSC tuner was JVC's last Digital VHS model, which could directly record 1080i or 720p HDTV.  It was no more expensive than the non-ATSC models.   As for DVD-Recorders I've never seen one with an ATSC tuner?</p><p>My solution was to buy an external tuner box with a built-in timer.  The timer automatically changes the channels at set times, and my VCR (or DVR) simply records the output from the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please elaborate on the frustrations of using a MythTV PC for recording .
The only VCR I 've ever seen with an integrated ATSC tuner was JVC 's last Digital VHS model , which could directly record 1080i or 720p HDTV .
It was no more expensive than the non-ATSC models .
As for DVD-Recorders I 've never seen one with an ATSC tuner ? My solution was to buy an external tuner box with a built-in timer .
The timer automatically changes the channels at set times , and my VCR ( or DVR ) simply records the output from the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please elaborate on the frustrations of using a MythTV PC for recording.
The only VCR I've ever seen with an integrated ATSC tuner was JVC's last Digital VHS model, which could directly record 1080i or 720p HDTV.
It was no more expensive than the non-ATSC models.
As for DVD-Recorders I've never seen one with an ATSC tuner?My solution was to buy an external tuner box with a built-in timer.
The timer automatically changes the channels at set times, and my VCR (or DVR) simply records the output from the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194281</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1244036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent doesn't even have to be for sale.  I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to sell it.  If some country actually thinks that it is morally or legally obliged to pay me $25-$40 for every TV produced because I thought of something first, then I'd exploit it as best as I could (well, I probably wouldn't, but there's people (hiding behind faceless cooperations) far more evil than me that would).</p><p>It's just funny that people actually think that paying an inventor/artist/producer/cooperation over an over again for the same product is actually the moral thing to do.  I'd probably even agree (up to a point) if it was a real person that would receive such wealth, but a faceless cooperation?  Hell no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent does n't even have to be for sale .
I certainly would n't be stupid enough to sell it .
If some country actually thinks that it is morally or legally obliged to pay me $ 25- $ 40 for every TV produced because I thought of something first , then I 'd exploit it as best as I could ( well , I probably would n't , but there 's people ( hiding behind faceless cooperations ) far more evil than me that would ) .It 's just funny that people actually think that paying an inventor/artist/producer/cooperation over an over again for the same product is actually the moral thing to do .
I 'd probably even agree ( up to a point ) if it was a real person that would receive such wealth , but a faceless cooperation ?
Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent doesn't even have to be for sale.
I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to sell it.
If some country actually thinks that it is morally or legally obliged to pay me $25-$40 for every TV produced because I thought of something first, then I'd exploit it as best as I could (well, I probably wouldn't, but there's people (hiding behind faceless cooperations) far more evil than me that would).It's just funny that people actually think that paying an inventor/artist/producer/cooperation over an over again for the same product is actually the moral thing to do.
I'd probably even agree (up to a point) if it was a real person that would receive such wealth, but a faceless cooperation?
Hell no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28196843</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US public is already buying the patent, to the tune of 40 dollar cards.</p><p>Would have saved money to buy the patent for a billion dollars.</p><p>". But it's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally (as tax burden) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none!</p><p>But we are currently paying for it on both ends. the tax 'burden' would be about 5 bucks a person. Far cheaper then sending out 40 dollar cards.<br>Or have congress declare it public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US public is already buying the patent , to the tune of 40 dollar cards.Would have saved money to buy the patent for a billion dollars. " .
But it 's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally ( as tax burden ) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none ! But we are currently paying for it on both ends .
the tax 'burden ' would be about 5 bucks a person .
Far cheaper then sending out 40 dollar cards.Or have congress declare it public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US public is already buying the patent, to the tune of 40 dollar cards.Would have saved money to buy the patent for a billion dollars.".
But it's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally (as tax burden) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none!But we are currently paying for it on both ends.
the tax 'burden' would be about 5 bucks a person.
Far cheaper then sending out 40 dollar cards.Or have congress declare it public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28193331</id>
	<title>Good, keep regulating TV into oblivion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything will just migrate over to the internet even faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything will just migrate over to the internet even faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything will just migrate over to the internet even faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191875</id>
	<title>Pal DTV!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1243963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.dtvpal.com/" title="dtvpal.com">http://www.dtvpal.com/</a> [dtvpal.com] -- It supports switching channels and scheduler for VCRs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.dtvpal.com/ [ dtvpal.com ] -- It supports switching channels and scheduler for VCRs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.dtvpal.com/ [dtvpal.com] -- It supports switching channels and scheduler for VCRs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495</id>
	<title>How much do you people think early TVs were?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243951740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first US color TVs in 1954 cost the equivalent of nearly $8000 in today's money, for a 14" screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first US color TVs in 1954 cost the equivalent of nearly $ 8000 in today 's money , for a 14 " screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first US color TVs in 1954 cost the equivalent of nearly $8000 in today's money, for a 14" screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247</id>
	<title>Analog TV was better than Digital</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1243949760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)</p><p>Number of stations with digital: 12</p><p>I basically lost half my entertainment.  Yes some of the analog signals may have degraded to black-and-white over 80 miles distance, but at least I could still catch the football or baseball game, whereas with digital I merely see a blank screen!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(   Thanks FCC and Congress for giving me less variety.  This could easily be fixed if they boosted the digital signal to match the power level of analog signals (basically twice current DTV levels), but they won't bother to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Number of stations I received via analog : 25 ( across three markets - Baltimore , Harrisburg , Philly ) Number of stations with digital : 12I basically lost half my entertainment .
Yes some of the analog signals may have degraded to black-and-white over 80 miles distance , but at least I could still catch the football or baseball game , whereas with digital I merely see a blank screen !
: - ( Thanks FCC and Congress for giving me less variety .
This could easily be fixed if they boosted the digital signal to match the power level of analog signals ( basically twice current DTV levels ) , but they wo n't bother to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)Number of stations with digital: 12I basically lost half my entertainment.
Yes some of the analog signals may have degraded to black-and-white over 80 miles distance, but at least I could still catch the football or baseball game, whereas with digital I merely see a blank screen!
:-(   Thanks FCC and Congress for giving me less variety.
This could easily be fixed if they boosted the digital signal to match the power level of analog signals (basically twice current DTV levels), but they won't bother to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194107</id>
	<title>Re:Non-vital luxury item</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1244035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's fun to play Nietzsche-reading, Beethoven-listening, society-superior intellectual snob who never turns on a TV, but I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I like TV.  I'm not watching Dancing with the Stars or whatever iteration Surviver is currently on, but I watch a cycle of local news while I'm cooking dinner, and if you're willing to sift through the chaff there are some good shows.  Early seasons of Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Dexter.  Heck, I'm watching M*A*S*H reruns on Ion most of which I've forgotten over the years. <p>  Vital?  No, not vital.  But neither is it something that should be thrown away by government fiat at the behest of corporate interests</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fun to play Nietzsche-reading , Beethoven-listening , society-superior intellectual snob who never turns on a TV , but I 'm going to go against the grain here and say that I like TV .
I 'm not watching Dancing with the Stars or whatever iteration Surviver is currently on , but I watch a cycle of local news while I 'm cooking dinner , and if you 're willing to sift through the chaff there are some good shows .
Early seasons of Sopranos , Breaking Bad , Dexter .
Heck , I 'm watching M * A * S * H reruns on Ion most of which I 've forgotten over the years .
Vital ? No , not vital .
But neither is it something that should be thrown away by government fiat at the behest of corporate interests</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fun to play Nietzsche-reading, Beethoven-listening, society-superior intellectual snob who never turns on a TV, but I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I like TV.
I'm not watching Dancing with the Stars or whatever iteration Surviver is currently on, but I watch a cycle of local news while I'm cooking dinner, and if you're willing to sift through the chaff there are some good shows.
Early seasons of Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Dexter.
Heck, I'm watching M*A*S*H reruns on Ion most of which I've forgotten over the years.
Vital?  No, not vital.
But neither is it something that should be thrown away by government fiat at the behest of corporate interests</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</id>
	<title>Makes Sense Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243948440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this might finally explain something I observed when preparing for the switchover. I was trying to find a VCR/DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner so I could record programs. (A converter box-&gt;regular VCR setup doesn't work well because the VCR doesn't have the ability to tell the converter box to change channels.)</p><p>I couldn't find anything in a low end VCR. All of the low end VCRs or DVD recorders were all tuner-free. You had to go up to the mid- to high-range models before you found one with a tuner, and even then it was hit-or-miss. Contrast that with VCR buying 3-5 years ago, where even the lowest of low end VCR had an integrated NTSC tuner.</p><p>At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits, that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore, but it makes sense that if you need to spend $25-40 on just ATSC licensing fees, you'll just drop the tuner, or would only put it into more expensive models.</p><p>(BTW, I finally went crazy, bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box. It's slicker and arguably better than a VCR, but with more headaches and frustrations.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this might finally explain something I observed when preparing for the switchover .
I was trying to find a VCR/DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner so I could record programs .
( A converter box- &gt; regular VCR setup does n't work well because the VCR does n't have the ability to tell the converter box to change channels .
) I could n't find anything in a low end VCR .
All of the low end VCRs or DVD recorders were all tuner-free .
You had to go up to the mid- to high-range models before you found one with a tuner , and even then it was hit-or-miss .
Contrast that with VCR buying 3-5 years ago , where even the lowest of low end VCR had an integrated NTSC tuner.At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits , that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore , but it makes sense that if you need to spend $ 25-40 on just ATSC licensing fees , you 'll just drop the tuner , or would only put it into more expensive models .
( BTW , I finally went crazy , bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box .
It 's slicker and arguably better than a VCR , but with more headaches and frustrations .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this might finally explain something I observed when preparing for the switchover.
I was trying to find a VCR/DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner so I could record programs.
(A converter box-&gt;regular VCR setup doesn't work well because the VCR doesn't have the ability to tell the converter box to change channels.
)I couldn't find anything in a low end VCR.
All of the low end VCRs or DVD recorders were all tuner-free.
You had to go up to the mid- to high-range models before you found one with a tuner, and even then it was hit-or-miss.
Contrast that with VCR buying 3-5 years ago, where even the lowest of low end VCR had an integrated NTSC tuner.At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits, that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore, but it makes sense that if you need to spend $25-40 on just ATSC licensing fees, you'll just drop the tuner, or would only put it into more expensive models.
(BTW, I finally went crazy, bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box.
It's slicker and arguably better than a VCR, but with more headaches and frustrations.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190747</id>
	<title>Re:That explains the $40 coupon</title>
	<author>N!NJA</author>
	<datestamp>1243953900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the "consumer" and the "taxpayer" are the same entity. therefore, the consumer *is* paying for the patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the " consumer " and the " taxpayer " are the same entity .
therefore , the consumer * is * paying for the patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "consumer" and the "taxpayer" are the same entity.
therefore, the consumer *is* paying for the patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189821</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1243946940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Develop semi-public transmission protocol and patent it<br>
2) Convince/Lobby/Bribe FCC to require your protocol/device to be sole method of data transmission for a widely used and veeery popular (populous?) medium<br>
3) Profit!<br> <br>Oh Sorry, I forgot the ??? Step, guess there isn't one in this corrupt equation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Develop semi-public transmission protocol and patent it 2 ) Convince/Lobby/Bribe FCC to require your protocol/device to be sole method of data transmission for a widely used and veeery popular ( populous ?
) medium 3 ) Profit !
Oh Sorry , I forgot the ? ? ?
Step , guess there is n't one in this corrupt equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Develop semi-public transmission protocol and patent it
2) Convince/Lobby/Bribe FCC to require your protocol/device to be sole method of data transmission for a widely used and veeery popular (populous?
) medium
3) Profit!
Oh Sorry, I forgot the ???
Step, guess there isn't one in this corrupt equation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190431</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>SteeldrivingJon</author>
	<datestamp>1243951200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like most of the patent fees are in the 'confidential licensors' category. That's the *only* category that increases as the screen size goes up.</p><p>And that category, being 'confidential', doesn't describe how, exactly the fees fit into Digital TV.</p><p>MPEG2 and MPEG-LA are fixed fees, at $2.50 and $5, respectively, no matter how big the screen is.</p><p>Somehow they "estimated" that the 'confidential licensors' category ranged from $6.15 to $20.65.  Which looks like blowing smoke. They don't actually know, they just made up a number based on the price of the TV.</p><p>(I'd also note that bigger, fancier TVs tend to have more features, including more advanced signal-processing features, so that also would explain why manufacturers might pay more, unspecified patent fees on larger TVs.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like most of the patent fees are in the 'confidential licensors ' category .
That 's the * only * category that increases as the screen size goes up.And that category , being 'confidential ' , does n't describe how , exactly the fees fit into Digital TV.MPEG2 and MPEG-LA are fixed fees , at $ 2.50 and $ 5 , respectively , no matter how big the screen is.Somehow they " estimated " that the 'confidential licensors ' category ranged from $ 6.15 to $ 20.65 .
Which looks like blowing smoke .
They do n't actually know , they just made up a number based on the price of the TV .
( I 'd also note that bigger , fancier TVs tend to have more features , including more advanced signal-processing features , so that also would explain why manufacturers might pay more , unspecified patent fees on larger TVs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like most of the patent fees are in the 'confidential licensors' category.
That's the *only* category that increases as the screen size goes up.And that category, being 'confidential', doesn't describe how, exactly the fees fit into Digital TV.MPEG2 and MPEG-LA are fixed fees, at $2.50 and $5, respectively, no matter how big the screen is.Somehow they "estimated" that the 'confidential licensors' category ranged from $6.15 to $20.65.
Which looks like blowing smoke.
They don't actually know, they just made up a number based on the price of the TV.
(I'd also note that bigger, fancier TVs tend to have more features, including more advanced signal-processing features, so that also would explain why manufacturers might pay more, unspecified patent fees on larger TVs.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190549</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense Now</title>
	<author>Optic7</author>
	<datestamp>1243952280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(BTW, I finally went crazy, bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box. It's slicker and arguably better than a VCR, but with more headaches and frustrations.)</p></div><p>I'm thinking about doing this as well, but I think I'm going to use an HD Homerun <a href="http://www.silicondust.com/" title="silicondust.com">http://www.silicondust.com/</a> [silicondust.com] which gets really good reviews and seems to be relatively headache- and frustration-free since it's an external networked device, so no drivers issues, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( BTW , I finally went crazy , bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box .
It 's slicker and arguably better than a VCR , but with more headaches and frustrations .
) I 'm thinking about doing this as well , but I think I 'm going to use an HD Homerun http : //www.silicondust.com/ [ silicondust.com ] which gets really good reviews and seems to be relatively headache- and frustration-free since it 's an external networked device , so no drivers issues , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(BTW, I finally went crazy, bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box.
It's slicker and arguably better than a VCR, but with more headaches and frustrations.
)I'm thinking about doing this as well, but I think I'm going to use an HD Homerun http://www.silicondust.com/ [silicondust.com] which gets really good reviews and seems to be relatively headache- and frustration-free since it's an external networked device, so no drivers issues, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189887</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243947360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public. This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.</i></p><p>Or require that the patent be licensed on reasonable &amp; non-discriminatory terms. Which seems to be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A ) Need to remove that requirement , B ) Have someone invalidate the patent or C ) Buy the patent and release it to the public .
This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.Or require that the patent be licensed on reasonable &amp; non-discriminatory terms .
Which seems to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public.
This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.Or require that the patent be licensed on reasonable &amp; non-discriminatory terms.
Which seems to be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190637</id>
	<title>Re:Makes Sense Now</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1243953240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits, that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore</i> </p><p>When you make the move to HD and the digital cable PVR there really isn't much reason to fire up your old VCR. In some ways, it would be easier and less painful to track down the external eSATA or Firewire drive that can give you five to ten times the storage of encrypted HD content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits , that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore When you make the move to HD and the digital cable PVR there really is n't much reason to fire up your old VCR .
In some ways , it would be easier and less painful to track down the external eSATA or Firewire drive that can give you five to ten times the storage of encrypted HD content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits, that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore When you make the move to HD and the digital cable PVR there really isn't much reason to fire up your old VCR.
In some ways, it would be easier and less painful to track down the external eSATA or Firewire drive that can give you five to ten times the storage of encrypted HD content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190673</id>
	<title>The Vizio/Funai thing is entirely unrelated!</title>
	<author>SteeldrivingJon</author>
	<datestamp>1243953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheesh. The Vizio thing is about Funai using Vizio LCD panel patents without a license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh .
The Vizio thing is about Funai using Vizio LCD panel patents without a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh.
The Vizio thing is about Funai using Vizio LCD panel patents without a license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190225</id>
	<title>Re:Shouldn't happen.....</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1243949580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HD radio is not mandated.  It is approved.  There's no phase-out of analog AM or FM planned, and the non-hybrid HD radio has not been approved, AFAIK.  Also, there are dozens of approved FM sideband formats out there, from traffic radio to pagers, and there's nothing stopping you from proposing a competing digital radio sideband standard.  For that matter, I think you can already use the the FMeXtra standard as an alternative (at least on the FM band), but I'm not positive about that.</p><p>Either way, the HD radio story is a far cry from mandating that the old standard must go away by a particular date so everyone is forced to buy the hardware in question.  There's still plenty of time to come up with a better digital radio standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HD radio is not mandated .
It is approved .
There 's no phase-out of analog AM or FM planned , and the non-hybrid HD radio has not been approved , AFAIK .
Also , there are dozens of approved FM sideband formats out there , from traffic radio to pagers , and there 's nothing stopping you from proposing a competing digital radio sideband standard .
For that matter , I think you can already use the the FMeXtra standard as an alternative ( at least on the FM band ) , but I 'm not positive about that.Either way , the HD radio story is a far cry from mandating that the old standard must go away by a particular date so everyone is forced to buy the hardware in question .
There 's still plenty of time to come up with a better digital radio standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD radio is not mandated.
It is approved.
There's no phase-out of analog AM or FM planned, and the non-hybrid HD radio has not been approved, AFAIK.
Also, there are dozens of approved FM sideband formats out there, from traffic radio to pagers, and there's nothing stopping you from proposing a competing digital radio sideband standard.
For that matter, I think you can already use the the FMeXtra standard as an alternative (at least on the FM band), but I'm not positive about that.Either way, the HD radio story is a far cry from mandating that the old standard must go away by a particular date so everyone is forced to buy the hardware in question.
There's still plenty of time to come up with a better digital radio standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191003</id>
	<title>Re:How much do you people think early TVs were?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1243956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The early digital tv's w/ lcd/plasma were well in excess of $20k in today's money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The early digital tv 's w/ lcd/plasma were well in excess of $ 20k in today 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The early digital tv's w/ lcd/plasma were well in excess of $20k in today's money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28196843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28193107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28201943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2139232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28201943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28196843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28189821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28191003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28194107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28193107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28192301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28190673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2139232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2139232.28193331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
