<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_1928229</id>
	<title>AMD Demos DirectX 11-Capable ATI Graphics Card</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244058660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Today at a press conference in Taiwan, AMD demonstrated the <a href="http://techfragments.com/news/857/Hardware/AMD\_Demos\_DirectX\_11\_Capable\_ATI\_Graphics\_Card.html">world's first GPU capable of DirectX 11</a> technology. The demonstrations shows the major improvements DirectX 11 gives us over DirectX 10 and also shows us what AMD has in store for an ATI Graphics Card coming out before the end of 2009 capable of DirectX 11. AMD shows three primary features of DirectX 11: a tessellator, which allows for less blocky and more fluid and realistic details; compute shaders which allows for less restricted programming; and finally, how DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Today at a press conference in Taiwan , AMD demonstrated the world 's first GPU capable of DirectX 11 technology .
The demonstrations shows the major improvements DirectX 11 gives us over DirectX 10 and also shows us what AMD has in store for an ATI Graphics Card coming out before the end of 2009 capable of DirectX 11 .
AMD shows three primary features of DirectX 11 : a tessellator , which allows for less blocky and more fluid and realistic details ; compute shaders which allows for less restricted programming ; and finally , how DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Today at a press conference in Taiwan, AMD demonstrated the world's first GPU capable of DirectX 11 technology.
The demonstrations shows the major improvements DirectX 11 gives us over DirectX 10 and also shows us what AMD has in store for an ATI Graphics Card coming out before the end of 2009 capable of DirectX 11.
AMD shows three primary features of DirectX 11: a tessellator, which allows for less blocky and more fluid and realistic details; compute shaders which allows for less restricted programming; and finally, how DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201077</id>
	<title>Re:Closer to the ultimate goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You kids with your 'realism', and '3D' pr0n.  Why, in my day, all we had was ASCII pr0n, running at 5 seconds per frame.  And we liked it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You kids with your 'realism ' , and '3D ' pr0n .
Why , in my day , all we had was ASCII pr0n , running at 5 seconds per frame .
And we liked it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You kids with your 'realism', and '3D' pr0n.
Why, in my day, all we had was ASCII pr0n, running at 5 seconds per frame.
And we liked it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203289</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Type44Q</author>
	<datestamp>1244031180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>will it run Lin^H^H^HWindows XP?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>will it run Lin ^ H ^ H ^ HWindows XP ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will it run Lin^H^H^HWindows XP?
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205845</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS3 has a great graphics card?</p><p>I want some of what you're smoking!</p><p>Disclaimer; I am a games programmer and I do know what I'm talking about.  The RSX was equivalent to a middle of the range PC gfx card at when the PS3 launched... probably because that's exactly what it is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 has a great graphics card ? I want some of what you 're smoking ! Disclaimer ; I am a games programmer and I do know what I 'm talking about .
The RSX was equivalent to a middle of the range PC gfx card at when the PS3 launched... probably because that 's exactly what it is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 has a great graphics card?I want some of what you're smoking!Disclaimer; I am a games programmer and I do know what I'm talking about.
The RSX was equivalent to a middle of the range PC gfx card at when the PS3 launched... probably because that's exactly what it is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200863</id>
	<title>Re:DX11 ALREADY?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1244022060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DX11 is a superset of DX10, so there's no reason for Microsoft to wait. Basicly it brings a few more interfaces but most importantly, much better multi-threading performance that is all on the driver side. All DX10 games will run just fine under DX11 and the minor performance hit we saw by DX10 is again being made irrelevant by faster cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DX11 is a superset of DX10 , so there 's no reason for Microsoft to wait .
Basicly it brings a few more interfaces but most importantly , much better multi-threading performance that is all on the driver side .
All DX10 games will run just fine under DX11 and the minor performance hit we saw by DX10 is again being made irrelevant by faster cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DX11 is a superset of DX10, so there's no reason for Microsoft to wait.
Basicly it brings a few more interfaces but most importantly, much better multi-threading performance that is all on the driver side.
All DX10 games will run just fine under DX11 and the minor performance hit we saw by DX10 is again being made irrelevant by faster cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205471</id>
	<title>Re:Nvidia on the Run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244047140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most expensive GeForce card at the moment (excluding ones with water-blocks built on) is the GTX295, which can be had for $550. Further, nVidia achieves higher memory bandwidth with that "aging DDR3 memory technology" than ATI does with GDDR5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most expensive GeForce card at the moment ( excluding ones with water-blocks built on ) is the GTX295 , which can be had for $ 550 .
Further , nVidia achieves higher memory bandwidth with that " aging DDR3 memory technology " than ATI does with GDDR5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most expensive GeForce card at the moment (excluding ones with water-blocks built on) is the GTX295, which can be had for $550.
Further, nVidia achieves higher memory bandwidth with that "aging DDR3 memory technology" than ATI does with GDDR5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</id>
	<title>Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>ADRA</author>
	<datestamp>1244021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that isn't in XP, hence nobody cares. You'll have the what, 30\% market segment with Vista, and maybe 10\% that are regular gamers who will be using this.</p><p>This will just encourage the further brokenness that Windows is turning the PC gaming platform. Good Job!</p><p>PS: Before everyone jumps in to say that everyone will jump into Win7, I think you're mistaken. The only way Microsoft will kill XP for most existing users would be to introduce a critical bug that they choose not to fix. I played with Win7 for a few days and can safely say that it doesn't add anything that I've ever wanted to use that a trivial search for google wouldn't find an as-good or better alternative. And maybe its just me, but pretty much every single UI 'enhancement' since circa Win2k is always a step backwards in terms of -my- productivity.</p><p>Its lucky that I'm Linux competent since Fedora/Gnome makes practically everything I need easy and uncluttered. If the barrier for entry was a little lower, I could see mass exodus potential coming as XP users take an honest look at what they -really- want to update to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is n't in XP , hence nobody cares .
You 'll have the what , 30 \ % market segment with Vista , and maybe 10 \ % that are regular gamers who will be using this.This will just encourage the further brokenness that Windows is turning the PC gaming platform .
Good Job ! PS : Before everyone jumps in to say that everyone will jump into Win7 , I think you 're mistaken .
The only way Microsoft will kill XP for most existing users would be to introduce a critical bug that they choose not to fix .
I played with Win7 for a few days and can safely say that it does n't add anything that I 've ever wanted to use that a trivial search for google would n't find an as-good or better alternative .
And maybe its just me , but pretty much every single UI 'enhancement ' since circa Win2k is always a step backwards in terms of -my- productivity.Its lucky that I 'm Linux competent since Fedora/Gnome makes practically everything I need easy and uncluttered .
If the barrier for entry was a little lower , I could see mass exodus potential coming as XP users take an honest look at what they -really- want to update to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that isn't in XP, hence nobody cares.
You'll have the what, 30\% market segment with Vista, and maybe 10\% that are regular gamers who will be using this.This will just encourage the further brokenness that Windows is turning the PC gaming platform.
Good Job!PS: Before everyone jumps in to say that everyone will jump into Win7, I think you're mistaken.
The only way Microsoft will kill XP for most existing users would be to introduce a critical bug that they choose not to fix.
I played with Win7 for a few days and can safely say that it doesn't add anything that I've ever wanted to use that a trivial search for google wouldn't find an as-good or better alternative.
And maybe its just me, but pretty much every single UI 'enhancement' since circa Win2k is always a step backwards in terms of -my- productivity.Its lucky that I'm Linux competent since Fedora/Gnome makes practically everything I need easy and uncluttered.
If the barrier for entry was a little lower, I could see mass exodus potential coming as XP users take an honest look at what they -really- want to update to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28202451</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>JCSoRocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244027640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason XP has hung on so long is that it took so long for Vista to come out. Everyone was running XP and have continued to do so because Vista was expensive, it had problems until SP1 came out, and ancient XP machines couldn't run it. No one skipped from Win2k to Vista. Tons of people will be skipping from XP to 7. Just wait and see. New machines will have 7. Old machines will be replaced with machines running 7. Gamers running XP will switch to 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason XP has hung on so long is that it took so long for Vista to come out .
Everyone was running XP and have continued to do so because Vista was expensive , it had problems until SP1 came out , and ancient XP machines could n't run it .
No one skipped from Win2k to Vista .
Tons of people will be skipping from XP to 7 .
Just wait and see .
New machines will have 7 .
Old machines will be replaced with machines running 7 .
Gamers running XP will switch to 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason XP has hung on so long is that it took so long for Vista to come out.
Everyone was running XP and have continued to do so because Vista was expensive, it had problems until SP1 came out, and ancient XP machines couldn't run it.
No one skipped from Win2k to Vista.
Tons of people will be skipping from XP to 7.
Just wait and see.
New machines will have 7.
Old machines will be replaced with machines running 7.
Gamers running XP will switch to 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955</id>
	<title>The real question is...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244022480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will <a href="http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/" title="3drealms.com">Duke Nukem Forever</a> [3drealms.com] wait to take advantage of DirectX 11?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Duke Nukem Forever [ 3drealms.com ] wait to take advantage of DirectX 11 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Duke Nukem Forever [3drealms.com] wait to take advantage of DirectX 11?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201783</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1244025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that it's not just you who feels this way about Windows 7, but that's mainly because this site is full of people who hate Microsoft for the sake of hating Microsoft.  Amongst the general population Windows 7 is gonna own.  Personal opinion, to be sure, but historically I'm pretty good at judging hype on its own merits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that it 's not just you who feels this way about Windows 7 , but that 's mainly because this site is full of people who hate Microsoft for the sake of hating Microsoft .
Amongst the general population Windows 7 is gon na own .
Personal opinion , to be sure , but historically I 'm pretty good at judging hype on its own merits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that it's not just you who feels this way about Windows 7, but that's mainly because this site is full of people who hate Microsoft for the sake of hating Microsoft.
Amongst the general population Windows 7 is gonna own.
Personal opinion, to be sure, but historically I'm pretty good at judging hype on its own merits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200293</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>eexaa</author>
	<datestamp>1244019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...so they are shipping real drivers with ATI cards? Great!<br> <br>
(In fact, I hope that they finally do something about this. I was forced to avoid any ATI hardware for over 5 years now, just because of driver incompatibilities. It's just sad.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...so they are shipping real drivers with ATI cards ?
Great ! ( In fact , I hope that they finally do something about this .
I was forced to avoid any ATI hardware for over 5 years now , just because of driver incompatibilities .
It 's just sad .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...so they are shipping real drivers with ATI cards?
Great! 
(In fact, I hope that they finally do something about this.
I was forced to avoid any ATI hardware for over 5 years now, just because of driver incompatibilities.
It's just sad.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200267</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>TikiTDO</author>
	<datestamp>1244019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember seeing some articles where senior Sony execs essentially said the PS3 was made to be complex, so that is not really a good comparison. Microsoft has been pretty good about making DirectX easy to use. I imagine this release will continue with the trend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember seeing some articles where senior Sony execs essentially said the PS3 was made to be complex , so that is not really a good comparison .
Microsoft has been pretty good about making DirectX easy to use .
I imagine this release will continue with the trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember seeing some articles where senior Sony execs essentially said the PS3 was made to be complex, so that is not really a good comparison.
Microsoft has been pretty good about making DirectX easy to use.
I imagine this release will continue with the trend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201233</id>
	<title>This one goes up to 11</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1244023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.</p></div><p>Because this one goes up to 11, so obviously it's better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.Because this one goes up to 11 , so obviously it 's better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.Because this one goes up to 11, so obviously it's better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201023</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1244022660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I now can play my favorite game of all time with decent performance: 3DMark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I now can play my favorite game of all time with decent performance : 3DMark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now can play my favorite game of all time with decent performance: 3DMark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28207319</id>
	<title>Re:Linux drivers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes there will be drivers at launch.</p><p>ATI has had at-launch ASIC support from the initial launch of the HD4xxx family.  This should continue with these new cards.</p><p>(I am not going to make any comment about general quality, but an aggressive OS community doesn't exactly help).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes there will be drivers at launch.ATI has had at-launch ASIC support from the initial launch of the HD4xxx family .
This should continue with these new cards .
( I am not going to make any comment about general quality , but an aggressive OS community does n't exactly help ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes there will be drivers at launch.ATI has had at-launch ASIC support from the initial launch of the HD4xxx family.
This should continue with these new cards.
(I am not going to make any comment about general quality, but an aggressive OS community doesn't exactly help).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200145</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>delta419</author>
	<datestamp>1244062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But will it run Vista?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But will it run Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will it run Vista?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201111</id>
	<title>Re:DX11 ALREADY?</title>
	<author>sssssss27</author>
	<datestamp>1244023080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DirectX 11 adds GPGPU support. This could allow games to be better on DirectX 11 instead of just being prettier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX 11 adds GPGPU support .
This could allow games to be better on DirectX 11 instead of just being prettier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX 11 adds GPGPU support.
This could allow games to be better on DirectX 11 instead of just being prettier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28208129</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>CrashNBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1244123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your frame of mind seems to be pretty common around here. "Nothing I can see" in Vista/Win7. I even might of agreed with that statement not all that long ago. Yet if you follow some of tech-notes related to Vista/Win7 ie the actual underpinnings of the system, not just the candy coated UI. Theres quite a lot of interesting stuff going on under the hood. Mark Russinovich's blog's since he was hired at Microsoft have been particularly enlightening - even more so than the stuff he used to post frequently on sysinternals.com.<br>
<br>
I think whats particularly interesting, is he used to frequently point out how he would solve a security issue, or track down a bug - usually with "Process Explorer" or one of its kin. Also he was the first to discover the much maligned Root Kit. And now he's working directly FOR Microsoft, which means instead of him just happening to find problems in his own time that might be of interest to him, or some of his old security related clients -- He now has a direct line to getting Windows Drivers fixed and/or the quirks in "MS Spaghetti code" that has caused their software to misbehave on so many occasions.  Which in the long run can only be a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your frame of mind seems to be pretty common around here .
" Nothing I can see " in Vista/Win7 .
I even might of agreed with that statement not all that long ago .
Yet if you follow some of tech-notes related to Vista/Win7 ie the actual underpinnings of the system , not just the candy coated UI .
Theres quite a lot of interesting stuff going on under the hood .
Mark Russinovich 's blog 's since he was hired at Microsoft have been particularly enlightening - even more so than the stuff he used to post frequently on sysinternals.com .
I think whats particularly interesting , is he used to frequently point out how he would solve a security issue , or track down a bug - usually with " Process Explorer " or one of its kin .
Also he was the first to discover the much maligned Root Kit .
And now he 's working directly FOR Microsoft , which means instead of him just happening to find problems in his own time that might be of interest to him , or some of his old security related clients -- He now has a direct line to getting Windows Drivers fixed and/or the quirks in " MS Spaghetti code " that has caused their software to misbehave on so many occasions .
Which in the long run can only be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your frame of mind seems to be pretty common around here.
"Nothing I can see" in Vista/Win7.
I even might of agreed with that statement not all that long ago.
Yet if you follow some of tech-notes related to Vista/Win7 ie the actual underpinnings of the system, not just the candy coated UI.
Theres quite a lot of interesting stuff going on under the hood.
Mark Russinovich's blog's since he was hired at Microsoft have been particularly enlightening - even more so than the stuff he used to post frequently on sysinternals.com.
I think whats particularly interesting, is he used to frequently point out how he would solve a security issue, or track down a bug - usually with "Process Explorer" or one of its kin.
Also he was the first to discover the much maligned Root Kit.
And now he's working directly FOR Microsoft, which means instead of him just happening to find problems in his own time that might be of interest to him, or some of his old security related clients -- He now has a direct line to getting Windows Drivers fixed and/or the quirks in "MS Spaghetti code" that has caused their software to misbehave on so many occasions.
Which in the long run can only be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28213981</id>
	<title>Re:Closer to the ultimate goal</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1244148240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 seconds per frame? My first modem was 2400 baud-- 240 characters a second, or about 0.12 fps on a standard 80*24 terminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 seconds per frame ?
My first modem was 2400 baud-- 240 characters a second , or about 0.12 fps on a standard 80 * 24 terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 seconds per frame?
My first modem was 2400 baud-- 240 characters a second, or about 0.12 fps on a standard 80*24 terminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275</id>
	<title>Re:DX11 ALREADY?</title>
	<author>Goldberg's Pants</author>
	<datestamp>1244019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is I'm running XP so am on DX9 and really saw no need for DX10. Just another graphics card upgrade that doesn't make the games any better.</p><p>Now if they could put out a card that improved gameplay and it only worked in Vista I'd be upgrading in a heartbeat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is I 'm running XP so am on DX9 and really saw no need for DX10 .
Just another graphics card upgrade that does n't make the games any better.Now if they could put out a card that improved gameplay and it only worked in Vista I 'd be upgrading in a heartbeat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is I'm running XP so am on DX9 and really saw no need for DX10.
Just another graphics card upgrade that doesn't make the games any better.Now if they could put out a card that improved gameplay and it only worked in Vista I'd be upgrading in a heartbeat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200265</id>
	<title>Closer to the ultimate goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realistic 3D CGI porn. Of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realistic 3D CGI porn .
Of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realistic 3D CGI porn.
Of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200599</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1244021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike console gaming, very few graphically intensive PC games are designed to work at a specific quality with a specific frame rate for a specific consumer card.  Rather, they're designed to be able to harness power from cards that don't exist at the time of development, and make good use of the features they know of at the time of development.</p><p>On a console, the system you design on is the system your users play on and direct optimization for the platform is both necessary and worthwhile.  In a PC gaming scenario, you can release a game that barely pulls 15fps on most peoples' systems (see Crysis) because hardware upgrades are or will become available to allow better performance for those who care to make the investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike console gaming , very few graphically intensive PC games are designed to work at a specific quality with a specific frame rate for a specific consumer card .
Rather , they 're designed to be able to harness power from cards that do n't exist at the time of development , and make good use of the features they know of at the time of development.On a console , the system you design on is the system your users play on and direct optimization for the platform is both necessary and worthwhile .
In a PC gaming scenario , you can release a game that barely pulls 15fps on most peoples ' systems ( see Crysis ) because hardware upgrades are or will become available to allow better performance for those who care to make the investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike console gaming, very few graphically intensive PC games are designed to work at a specific quality with a specific frame rate for a specific consumer card.
Rather, they're designed to be able to harness power from cards that don't exist at the time of development, and make good use of the features they know of at the time of development.On a console, the system you design on is the system your users play on and direct optimization for the platform is both necessary and worthwhile.
In a PC gaming scenario, you can release a game that barely pulls 15fps on most peoples' systems (see Crysis) because hardware upgrades are or will become available to allow better performance for those who care to make the investment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200107</id>
	<title>Direct X11?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or is Microsoft finally catching up with the unix world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is Microsoft finally catching up with the unix world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is Microsoft finally catching up with the unix world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200529</id>
	<title>who cares, my computer OSs don't have direct-x</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1244021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and won't, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and wo n't , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and won't, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157</id>
	<title>DX11 ALREADY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.</p><p>There aren't many games that work well with DX10 yet, why focus on DX11?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.There are n't many games that work well with DX10 yet , why focus on DX11 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they work on their DX 10 performance first.There aren't many games that work well with DX10 yet, why focus on DX11?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204791</id>
	<title>Re:The real question is...</title>
	<author>ichigo 2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought 3drealms going bankrupt would end the DNF meme. Guess I was wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought 3drealms going bankrupt would end the DNF meme .
Guess I was wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought 3drealms going bankrupt would end the DNF meme.
Guess I was wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200377</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering almost all graphics processing is in the class of "Embarrassingly Parallel"... yes. They will be able to.<br>
<br>
The question isn't CAN they, but rather WILL they? Will it hit enough of a market penetration that it becomes economically viable to target? I only ask because DX10 STILL hasn't hit that point...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering almost all graphics processing is in the class of " Embarrassingly Parallel " ... yes. They will be able to .
The question is n't CAN they , but rather WILL they ?
Will it hit enough of a market penetration that it becomes economically viable to target ?
I only ask because DX10 STILL has n't hit that point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering almost all graphics processing is in the class of "Embarrassingly Parallel"... yes. They will be able to.
The question isn't CAN they, but rather WILL they?
Will it hit enough of a market penetration that it becomes economically viable to target?
I only ask because DX10 STILL hasn't hit that point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200205</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh man, If I could mod this +5, funny, I would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man , If I could mod this + 5 , funny , I would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man, If I could mod this +5, funny, I would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200649</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>nobodylocalhost</author>
	<datestamp>1244021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think tessellation will be controllable on the driver side, in that case, you wont need to write specialized code in order to take advantage of it.<br>From what I understand, it is basically point based curve matching using differential calculus - a fundamental change in the way models are being rendered. So even for existing games, you just need to turn on tessellation processing with your graphics card driver, and you should be able to take advantage of it due to the fact it just changes the rendering method, models themselves and other parameters should remain the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think tessellation will be controllable on the driver side , in that case , you wont need to write specialized code in order to take advantage of it.From what I understand , it is basically point based curve matching using differential calculus - a fundamental change in the way models are being rendered .
So even for existing games , you just need to turn on tessellation processing with your graphics card driver , and you should be able to take advantage of it due to the fact it just changes the rendering method , models themselves and other parameters should remain the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think tessellation will be controllable on the driver side, in that case, you wont need to write specialized code in order to take advantage of it.From what I understand, it is basically point based curve matching using differential calculus - a fundamental change in the way models are being rendered.
So even for existing games, you just need to turn on tessellation processing with your graphics card driver, and you should be able to take advantage of it due to the fact it just changes the rendering method, models themselves and other parameters should remain the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200803</id>
	<title>What happened...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244021820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to having one universal standard with DirectX 9
Back in the days of DirectX 9, I don't remember Microsoft releasing a new version, requiring new hardware, every single year.
And then, of course, they make all of their new games need the latest version of DirectX. So, people need to go out and buy new hardware, just to play a game. Most of these games are eventually cracked on torrent sites, so, obviously, its not necessary to have these new versions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to having one universal standard with DirectX 9 Back in the days of DirectX 9 , I do n't remember Microsoft releasing a new version , requiring new hardware , every single year .
And then , of course , they make all of their new games need the latest version of DirectX .
So , people need to go out and buy new hardware , just to play a game .
Most of these games are eventually cracked on torrent sites , so , obviously , its not necessary to have these new versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to having one universal standard with DirectX 9
Back in the days of DirectX 9, I don't remember Microsoft releasing a new version, requiring new hardware, every single year.
And then, of course, they make all of their new games need the latest version of DirectX.
So, people need to go out and buy new hardware, just to play a game.
Most of these games are eventually cracked on torrent sites, so, obviously, its not necessary to have these new versions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200383</id>
	<title>Re:DX11 ALREADY?</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just another graphics card upgrade that doesn't make the games any better.</p></div><p>And that's any different than any other incrementing of DirectX, how?  Did DirectX 9 provide you improved gameplay over DirectX 8?  Doubtful.  It was just another graphics card update that didn't make the games any better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another graphics card upgrade that does n't make the games any better.And that 's any different than any other incrementing of DirectX , how ?
Did DirectX 9 provide you improved gameplay over DirectX 8 ?
Doubtful. It was just another graphics card update that did n't make the games any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another graphics card upgrade that doesn't make the games any better.And that's any different than any other incrementing of DirectX, how?
Did DirectX 9 provide you improved gameplay over DirectX 8?
Doubtful.  It was just another graphics card update that didn't make the games any better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200601</id>
	<title>Exposure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I'm reading all DirectX 11.0 does is exposing functionality that's already in place with most modern GPUs. So I don't see why we need another new GPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 'm reading all DirectX 11.0 does is exposing functionality that 's already in place with most modern GPUs .
So I do n't see why we need another new GPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I'm reading all DirectX 11.0 does is exposing functionality that's already in place with most modern GPUs.
So I don't see why we need another new GPU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203257</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the bug is called "Not having DirectX 11"</p><p>There will never be a mass exodus to Linux as long as corporations keep ties to an OS and developers write code to take advantage of specific items in that OS.</p><p>If applications were self contained like they should be, then the OS wouldn't matter nearly as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the bug is called " Not having DirectX 11 " There will never be a mass exodus to Linux as long as corporations keep ties to an OS and developers write code to take advantage of specific items in that OS.If applications were self contained like they should be , then the OS would n't matter nearly as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the bug is called "Not having DirectX 11"There will never be a mass exodus to Linux as long as corporations keep ties to an OS and developers write code to take advantage of specific items in that OS.If applications were self contained like they should be, then the OS wouldn't matter nearly as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201327</id>
	<title>Worst quote ever</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1244023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA (in reference to the tesselator in DirectX 11):<p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of having to trade off quality for performance, like in the past, developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.</p></div><p>Yeah, I'm sure turning on tessellation won't cause any performance hit at all.<br> <br>Tech Fragments has the most sensationalist writers ever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA ( in reference to the tesselator in DirectX 11 ) : Instead of having to trade off quality for performance , like in the past , developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.Yeah , I 'm sure turning on tessellation wo n't cause any performance hit at all .
Tech Fragments has the most sensationalist writers ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA (in reference to the tesselator in DirectX 11):Instead of having to trade off quality for performance, like in the past, developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.Yeah, I'm sure turning on tessellation won't cause any performance hit at all.
Tech Fragments has the most sensationalist writers ever.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28209327</id>
	<title>Re:The real question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well they've already done 100 re-writes of the game and engine.  What's another one going to hurt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they 've already done 100 re-writes of the game and engine .
What 's another one going to hurt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they've already done 100 re-writes of the game and engine.
What's another one going to hurt...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201789</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Another Feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Douchebags like you are the reason I won't ever use a Linux OS of any kind.</p><p>PS: I use and like Windows Vista. It doesn't just have a better UI but it's also faster than XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Douchebags like you are the reason I wo n't ever use a Linux OS of any kind.PS : I use and like Windows Vista .
It does n't just have a better UI but it 's also faster than XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Douchebags like you are the reason I won't ever use a Linux OS of any kind.PS: I use and like Windows Vista.
It doesn't just have a better UI but it's also faster than XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200259</id>
	<title>meh, we go through this every few years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>so what, another update to Direct X and another batch of video cards that support it.  Or partially support some of the features, or 100\% all of the key features, but not some others. or some variation on that.  Blah blah blah</htmltext>
<tokenext>so what , another update to Direct X and another batch of video cards that support it .
Or partially support some of the features , or 100 \ % all of the key features , but not some others .
or some variation on that .
Blah blah blah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so what, another update to Direct X and another batch of video cards that support it.
Or partially support some of the features, or 100\% all of the key features, but not some others.
or some variation on that.
Blah blah blah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200633</id>
	<title>The end of the CPU/GPU divide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244021340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lastly, DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores. This should allow developers to offload some of the work on to the processors that are typically there not doing as much work, freeing up the GPU to do the more important processing and rendering.</p></div><p>Interesting turnaround.  The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor.  Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload <i>their</i> computation back to the CPU again.<br>This is further evidence that the CPU/GPU divide is being eliminated, and that there will likely be no such distinction among processors in the near feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Lastly , DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores .
This should allow developers to offload some of the work on to the processors that are typically there not doing as much work , freeing up the GPU to do the more important processing and rendering.Interesting turnaround .
The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor .
Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload their computation back to the CPU again.This is further evidence that the CPU/GPU divide is being eliminated , and that there will likely be no such distinction among processors in the near feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Lastly, DX11 is better designed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
This should allow developers to offload some of the work on to the processors that are typically there not doing as much work, freeing up the GPU to do the more important processing and rendering.Interesting turnaround.
The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor.
Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload their computation back to the CPU again.This is further evidence that the CPU/GPU divide is being eliminated, and that there will likely be no such distinction among processors in the near feature.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203221</id>
	<title>Re:who cares, my computer OSs don't have direct-x</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244030880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we salute you~</p><p>Jeez dude, no one cares and it doesn't belong in this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we salute you ~ Jeez dude , no one cares and it does n't belong in this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we salute you~Jeez dude, no one cares and it doesn't belong in this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</id>
	<title>Will programmers be able to utilize?</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1244062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is the real question, the PS3 for example has amazing computing speed and a great graphics card, but game programmers have yet been able to utilize the system to its full potential. I'll be curious to see if the same occurs here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the real question , the PS3 for example has amazing computing speed and a great graphics card , but game programmers have yet been able to utilize the system to its full potential .
I 'll be curious to see if the same occurs here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the real question, the PS3 for example has amazing computing speed and a great graphics card, but game programmers have yet been able to utilize the system to its full potential.
I'll be curious to see if the same occurs here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205913</id>
	<title>Re:The end of the CPU/GPU divide</title>
	<author>Lord Crc</author>
	<datestamp>1244052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting turnaround.  The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor.  Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload <i>their</i> computation back to the CPU again.</p></div><p>No, that is not what's going on. The GPUs have become so fast at doing their jobs that the CPU can't feed them fast enough. That's where the new features in DX11 will  help. It will make it possible to efficiently use multiple threads to feed the GPUs. This has been an issue in DX10 and earlier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting turnaround .
The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor .
Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload their computation back to the CPU again.No , that is not what 's going on .
The GPUs have become so fast at doing their jobs that the CPU ca n't feed them fast enough .
That 's where the new features in DX11 will help .
It will make it possible to efficiently use multiple threads to feed the GPUs .
This has been an issue in DX10 and earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting turnaround.
The original motivation for the GPU was to allow the CPU to offload expensive graphics computation to a dedicated processor.
Now it appears that that newer GPUs are allowed to offload their computation back to the CPU again.No, that is not what's going on.
The GPUs have become so fast at doing their jobs that the CPU can't feed them fast enough.
That's where the new features in DX11 will  help.
It will make it possible to efficiently use multiple threads to feed the GPUs.
This has been an issue in DX10 and earlier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201043</id>
	<title>Useless, stupidly written information-free article</title>
	<author>White Flame</author>
	<datestamp>1244022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, this is the depth of comprehension that the author has about what tessellation is?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the technologies in DirectX 11 is something called tessellator.</p><p>Tessellator allows for more smoother, less blocky, and more organic looking objects in games. Anti-aliasing shouldn't be confused with this, as AA does a descent job at smoothing out sharp edges but tessellator actually makes it look more fluid and frankly much more realistic. Tessellator makes things look more "rounded" instead of chunky and blocky. Instead of having to trade off quality for performance, like in the past, developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.</p></div><p>Tech <i>Fragments</i> is an appropriate name for the site, I guess, seeing as they can't even get the tense of the word right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , this is the depth of comprehension that the author has about what tessellation is ? One of the technologies in DirectX 11 is something called tessellator.Tessellator allows for more smoother , less blocky , and more organic looking objects in games .
Anti-aliasing should n't be confused with this , as AA does a descent job at smoothing out sharp edges but tessellator actually makes it look more fluid and frankly much more realistic .
Tessellator makes things look more " rounded " instead of chunky and blocky .
Instead of having to trade off quality for performance , like in the past , developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.Tech Fragments is an appropriate name for the site , I guess , seeing as they ca n't even get the tense of the word right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, this is the depth of comprehension that the author has about what tessellation is?One of the technologies in DirectX 11 is something called tessellator.Tessellator allows for more smoother, less blocky, and more organic looking objects in games.
Anti-aliasing shouldn't be confused with this, as AA does a descent job at smoothing out sharp edges but tessellator actually makes it look more fluid and frankly much more realistic.
Tessellator makes things look more "rounded" instead of chunky and blocky.
Instead of having to trade off quality for performance, like in the past, developers can now have the most realistic scenes without a performance hit.Tech Fragments is an appropriate name for the site, I guess, seeing as they can't even get the tense of the word right.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203365</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1244031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This one goes to 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one goes to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one goes to 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204409</id>
	<title>Excuse Me But...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse me, but, didn't DirectX 10.1 also provide for a tessellator?<br> <br>
And isn't this the reason why there never was an Nvidia 10.1 card, but ATI ran it just fine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , but , did n't DirectX 10.1 also provide for a tessellator ?
And is n't this the reason why there never was an Nvidia 10.1 card , but ATI ran it just fine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, but, didn't DirectX 10.1 also provide for a tessellator?
And isn't this the reason why there never was an Nvidia 10.1 card, but ATI ran it just fine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28210127</id>
	<title>Re:meh, we go through this every few years</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1244132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DirectX 10 got away from that.  For a card to be DirectX 10 compatible, it has to support the feature-set, to ensure different cards produce the same output.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX 10 got away from that .
For a card to be DirectX 10 compatible , it has to support the feature-set , to ensure different cards produce the same output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX 10 got away from that.
For a card to be DirectX 10 compatible, it has to support the feature-set, to ensure different cards produce the same output.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200223</id>
	<title>Linux drivers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Yes, but will it run with all of the bells and whistles (sans DirectX, of course) on Linux? Will they have solid drivers available on release?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but will it run with all of the bells and whistles ( sans DirectX , of course ) on Linux ?
Will they have solid drivers available on release ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but will it run with all of the bells and whistles (sans DirectX, of course) on Linux?
Will they have solid drivers available on release?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204337</id>
	<title>Nvidia on the Run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, am happy to see Nvidia on the run.  I've seen what they will try to do ($649 for a GT280 card based on aging DDR3 memory technology) when they think that they rule the roost.  Go ATI!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , am happy to see Nvidia on the run .
I 've seen what they will try to do ( $ 649 for a GT280 card based on aging DDR3 memory technology ) when they think that they rule the roost .
Go ATI !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, am happy to see Nvidia on the run.
I've seen what they will try to do ($649 for a GT280 card based on aging DDR3 memory technology) when they think that they rule the roost.
Go ATI!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200935</id>
	<title>Re:Will programmers -be willing- to utilize?</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1244022420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You <i>can</i> utilise the (agreed) good performance of the PS3, as witnessed by the number of eggheads who have hacked them to serve as cheap supercomputing clusters, (see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts <i>Ad nauseam</i>.</p><p>I'd personnally rephrase your comment more along the lines of "is it financially viable"?<br>Of course, the PS3 is a notorious horror to code for, but the other factor - market share - should be up there too.<br>Naturally, the two are related.</p><p>AMD &amp; DirectX11 - sounds like a similar Pyrrhic victory...</p><p>Now if only OpenGL etc. had the same marketing hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can utilise the ( agreed ) good performance of the PS3 , as witnessed by the number of eggheads who have hacked them to serve as cheap supercomputing clusters , ( see / .
posts Ad nauseam.I 'd personnally rephrase your comment more along the lines of " is it financially viable " ? Of course , the PS3 is a notorious horror to code for , but the other factor - market share - should be up there too.Naturally , the two are related.AMD &amp; DirectX11 - sounds like a similar Pyrrhic victory...Now if only OpenGL etc .
had the same marketing hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can utilise the (agreed) good performance of the PS3, as witnessed by the number of eggheads who have hacked them to serve as cheap supercomputing clusters, (see /.
posts Ad nauseam.I'd personnally rephrase your comment more along the lines of "is it financially viable"?Of course, the PS3 is a notorious horror to code for, but the other factor - market share - should be up there too.Naturally, the two are related.AMD &amp; DirectX11 - sounds like a similar Pyrrhic victory...Now if only OpenGL etc.
had the same marketing hype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200337</id>
	<title>Beowolf Cluster?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244020080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Golly!  Just imagine the graphics output a beowolf cluster of these would produce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Golly !
Just imagine the graphics output a beowolf cluster of these would produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Golly!
Just imagine the graphics output a beowolf cluster of these would produce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28208129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28207319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28210127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28213981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28202451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28209327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_1928229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28213981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28202451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28208129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28201233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28207319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28205913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28210127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28209327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28204791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_1928229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28200529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_1928229.28203221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
