<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_1550225</id>
	<title>Maingear Touts New Rig As "Planet's Greenest Gaming PC"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244225640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Maingear has just unveiled what they are calling the "<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/05/maingear-introduces-eco-friendly-ion-powered-pulse-sff-pc/">planet's greenest gaming PC</a>."  Built using a small form factor and coming with Intel's new Ion graphics as the default option, this little powerhouse is built with a definite eye toward energy consumption.  <i>"Said configuration is available with Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs and an 80+ certified 300-watt power supply; those who care more about frame rates than Ma Earth can opt for a GeForce 9800 GT ECO, which &mdash; despite being a discrete, power-hungry GPU &mdash; still swallows some 40 percent less power than a standard 9800 GT. You'll also find WiFi support, room for an optional Blu-ray drive and TV tuner, upwards of 8GB of RAM and room for a single 2.5-inch HDD or SSD. The whole box checks in at just 7.6- x 8.3- x 11.4-inches, and it's available for order right now starting at $799."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maingear has just unveiled what they are calling the " planet 's greenest gaming PC .
" Built using a small form factor and coming with Intel 's new Ion graphics as the default option , this little powerhouse is built with a definite eye toward energy consumption .
" Said configuration is available with Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs and an 80 + certified 300-watt power supply ; those who care more about frame rates than Ma Earth can opt for a GeForce 9800 GT ECO , which    despite being a discrete , power-hungry GPU    still swallows some 40 percent less power than a standard 9800 GT .
You 'll also find WiFi support , room for an optional Blu-ray drive and TV tuner , upwards of 8GB of RAM and room for a single 2.5-inch HDD or SSD .
The whole box checks in at just 7.6- x 8.3- x 11.4-inches , and it 's available for order right now starting at $ 799 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maingear has just unveiled what they are calling the "planet's greenest gaming PC.
"  Built using a small form factor and coming with Intel's new Ion graphics as the default option, this little powerhouse is built with a definite eye toward energy consumption.
"Said configuration is available with Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs and an 80+ certified 300-watt power supply; those who care more about frame rates than Ma Earth can opt for a GeForce 9800 GT ECO, which — despite being a discrete, power-hungry GPU — still swallows some 40 percent less power than a standard 9800 GT.
You'll also find WiFi support, room for an optional Blu-ray drive and TV tuner, upwards of 8GB of RAM and room for a single 2.5-inch HDD or SSD.
The whole box checks in at just 7.6- x 8.3- x 11.4-inches, and it's available for order right now starting at $799.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226557</id>
	<title>The Wii</title>
	<author>Turmoyl</author>
	<datestamp>1244233740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wii does all of this for about 20W and has a much smaller form factor.  I'd say it's much more "green" that the Pulse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii does all of this for about 20W and has a much smaller form factor .
I 'd say it 's much more " green " that the Pulse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii does all of this for about 20W and has a much smaller form factor.
I'd say it's much more "green" that the Pulse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225825</id>
	<title>Small form factor?</title>
	<author>dontPanik</author>
	<datestamp>1244230140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone want a small form factor when building a gaming pc?<br>
That just makes it harder to fit enormous graphics cards in the case. Is that supposed to be a green selling point?<br> <br>

Also, why have wifi access? That sucks for online gaming because of its unreliablity.<br>
<br>
Other than that, looks like a sweet build. Good price too. Computer gaming really isn't that expensive it's been looking like lately. If your buying a computer, might as well pony up a little more moola and play games on it too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want a small form factor when building a gaming pc ?
That just makes it harder to fit enormous graphics cards in the case .
Is that supposed to be a green selling point ?
Also , why have wifi access ?
That sucks for online gaming because of its unreliablity .
Other than that , looks like a sweet build .
Good price too .
Computer gaming really is n't that expensive it 's been looking like lately .
If your buying a computer , might as well pony up a little more moola and play games on it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want a small form factor when building a gaming pc?
That just makes it harder to fit enormous graphics cards in the case.
Is that supposed to be a green selling point?
Also, why have wifi access?
That sucks for online gaming because of its unreliablity.
Other than that, looks like a sweet build.
Good price too.
Computer gaming really isn't that expensive it's been looking like lately.
If your buying a computer, might as well pony up a little more moola and play games on it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226415</id>
	<title>Re:300 Watts is green?</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1244233080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the Mini is 110W at full load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the Mini is 110W at full load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the Mini is 110W at full load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226789</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm...</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1244235120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same thing with green, it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green.</p></div><p>For one thing, they could start by using an efficient power supply...these days, "80 PLUS" isn't really a big deal</p><p>Instead, how about going for up to 12\% <b>more</b> efficiency with an "80 PLUS Gold" supply.  In addition, every supply that is more than the base "80 PLUS" has better power-factor correction values for the vast majority of loads.  As usual, it's covered pretty well <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80\_PLUS" title="wikipedia.org">in the Wikipedia article</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing with green , it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green.For one thing , they could start by using an efficient power supply...these days , " 80 PLUS " is n't really a big dealInstead , how about going for up to 12 \ % more efficiency with an " 80 PLUS Gold " supply .
In addition , every supply that is more than the base " 80 PLUS " has better power-factor correction values for the vast majority of loads .
As usual , it 's covered pretty well in the Wikipedia article [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing with green, it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green.For one thing, they could start by using an efficient power supply...these days, "80 PLUS" isn't really a big dealInstead, how about going for up to 12\% more efficiency with an "80 PLUS Gold" supply.
In addition, every supply that is more than the base "80 PLUS" has better power-factor correction values for the vast majority of loads.
As usual, it's covered pretty well in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227727</id>
	<title>Re:300 Watts is green?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The green PC has a 9800. RTFA. Thats at least 10x as good as a 9400.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The green PC has a 9800 .
RTFA. Thats at least 10x as good as a 9400 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The green PC has a 9800.
RTFA. Thats at least 10x as good as a 9400.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225955</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1244230800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth</p></div><p>Wait, it hasn't always been about fashion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fear that 'green ' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the EarthWait , it has n't always been about fashion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the EarthWait, it hasn't always been about fashion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1244231400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226225</id>
	<title>Re:That's kind of a stretch.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244232300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't the same rule apply to the hand versus the hooker? And don't lots of people STILL choose the latter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the same rule apply to the hand versus the hooker ?
And do n't lots of people STILL choose the latter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the same rule apply to the hand versus the hooker?
And don't lots of people STILL choose the latter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226521</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the 9800 GT ECO.<br>It uses 40\% less power.<br>Read the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the 9800 GT ECO.It uses 40 \ % less power.Read the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the 9800 GT ECO.It uses 40\% less power.Read the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657</id>
	<title>-intel's- ION "graphics"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel's? What did I miss?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel 's ?
What did I miss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel's?
What did I miss?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227137</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244193600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah!  My Toyota Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds and gets 36 mpg doing mostly highway driving, and it's priced a good $10,000 below a comparably equipped Prius.</p><p>In the same vein, I've already spec'd out a low-profile gaming computer for $500 in parts: a Core 2 processor, SATA hard drive, DVD player, and HDMI output running on a 350W supply.  Not much different in power consumption and a good few hundred dollars less than their most comparable machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
My Toyota Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds and gets 36 mpg doing mostly highway driving , and it 's priced a good $ 10,000 below a comparably equipped Prius.In the same vein , I 've already spec 'd out a low-profile gaming computer for $ 500 in parts : a Core 2 processor , SATA hard drive , DVD player , and HDMI output running on a 350W supply .
Not much different in power consumption and a good few hundred dollars less than their most comparable machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
My Toyota Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds and gets 36 mpg doing mostly highway driving, and it's priced a good $10,000 below a comparably equipped Prius.In the same vein, I've already spec'd out a low-profile gaming computer for $500 in parts: a Core 2 processor, SATA hard drive, DVD player, and HDMI output running on a 350W supply.
Not much different in power consumption and a good few hundred dollars less than their most comparable machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226161</id>
	<title>Re:300 Watts is green?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then what the hell is the <a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Mac mini</a> [apple.com] at only 110W?</p></div><p>You're comparing the power supply's maximum wattage to the Mini's load wattage.  According to
Maingear's site, the load wattage is about 145, still higher but not as far off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what the hell is the Mac mini [ apple.com ] at only 110W ? You 're comparing the power supply 's maximum wattage to the Mini 's load wattage .
According to Maingear 's site , the load wattage is about 145 , still higher but not as far off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what the hell is the Mac mini [apple.com] at only 110W?You're comparing the power supply's maximum wattage to the Mini's load wattage.
According to
Maingear's site, the load wattage is about 145, still higher but not as far off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227291</id>
	<title>Let's be serious here..</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1244194500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A properly green computer would output more energy than you input. Greenwash. The Next Big Economic Bubble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A properly green computer would output more energy than you input .
Greenwash. The Next Big Economic Bubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A properly green computer would output more energy than you input.
Greenwash. The Next Big Economic Bubble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28231605</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1244290020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid of ARE YOU INSANE!!! I'm running my file server on a 586 Pentium system with the F00F bug. It...has connectors taken off for other repairs. I don't need no stinking keyboard even to load an OS. The AMD64 will be the media server as the 586 does not stream movies well. The P90 stink pad is now a picture frame. It randomly displays pictures from the file server or if I push the porn button (the P key) it surfs the web and displays...things. The other stink pad with the CD and the P133 is used by a friends kid for dos games using dosbox and a stripped down redhat distribution. Seven power supplies are being used for testing, lighting, replacement wall warts, etc. Don't talk to me about get rid of. Sheesh. When they are utter crap, saw out a useful chip with that section of board, solder wires to it and use that. Saw up the rest for jewelry or lamps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I'd mandate that any manufacturer be forced to allow a device to be re-purposed and that they have to store every datasheet for 100yrs or fund a datasheet library. If it took excluding them from liability I'd be inclined to grant it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of ARE YOU INSANE ! ! !
I 'm running my file server on a 586 Pentium system with the F00F bug .
It...has connectors taken off for other repairs .
I do n't need no stinking keyboard even to load an OS .
The AMD64 will be the media server as the 586 does not stream movies well .
The P90 stink pad is now a picture frame .
It randomly displays pictures from the file server or if I push the porn button ( the P key ) it surfs the web and displays...things .
The other stink pad with the CD and the P133 is used by a friends kid for dos games using dosbox and a stripped down redhat distribution .
Seven power supplies are being used for testing , lighting , replacement wall warts , etc .
Do n't talk to me about get rid of .
Sheesh. When they are utter crap , saw out a useful chip with that section of board , solder wires to it and use that .
Saw up the rest for jewelry or lamps ; ) I 'd mandate that any manufacturer be forced to allow a device to be re-purposed and that they have to store every datasheet for 100yrs or fund a datasheet library .
If it took excluding them from liability I 'd be inclined to grant it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of ARE YOU INSANE!!!
I'm running my file server on a 586 Pentium system with the F00F bug.
It...has connectors taken off for other repairs.
I don't need no stinking keyboard even to load an OS.
The AMD64 will be the media server as the 586 does not stream movies well.
The P90 stink pad is now a picture frame.
It randomly displays pictures from the file server or if I push the porn button (the P key) it surfs the web and displays...things.
The other stink pad with the CD and the P133 is used by a friends kid for dos games using dosbox and a stripped down redhat distribution.
Seven power supplies are being used for testing, lighting, replacement wall warts, etc.
Don't talk to me about get rid of.
Sheesh. When they are utter crap, saw out a useful chip with that section of board, solder wires to it and use that.
Saw up the rest for jewelry or lamps ;)I'd mandate that any manufacturer be forced to allow a device to be re-purposed and that they have to store every datasheet for 100yrs or fund a datasheet library.
If it took excluding them from liability I'd be inclined to grant it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226063</id>
	<title>Green Trends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soon enough someone is going to produce a "Green" watch that consumes even less electricity than those that use the smallest batteries. Someone will also invent a "Green" flashlight that uses so little power it actually makes the room darker! What the hell? Are companies really so retarded that they think cutting back on some of the lowest energy usage appliances are going to save the world? If you really want to  save the planet why not invent a water heater that doesn't require heating massive resistance coils to warm water up. Or maybe someone could invent a dishwasher that can clean pots and pans without using superheating coils to melt all forms of food and tupperware. Or perhaps someone could invent an alternative cooking method that doesn't involve superheating coils on a stovetop.
<br> <br>
Oh wait, we have things like clothes lines, cauldrons, and BBQs. This is the thing that bugs me. If consumers really wanted to "Go Green," if they really wanted to take drastic action to save the environment, all they need to do that is in place already. Our society existed before mass distribution of electricity, and we could save a crap-ton of kW-hr (because, you know, they have mass too) by cutting back on some of the conveniences that really do drive power bills through the roof. Granted, computers being left on day and night help drive up electricity bills. This pales, in comparison, however, to something like 4 people taking 30 minute hot showers every day. Rather than trying to pinch every bit of energy savings from every friggin' appliance in every household, how about we just start conserving a little bit by cutting back on some of our luxuries. Restricting showers to 10-15 minutes would drastically save on electricity for a 4 person family. It would also save water (which is at least as important a problem as the energy issue these days). The best benefit of that kind of behavior modification: we don't have to buy all the new green trendy BS that marketeers are spamming our lives with everyday.
<br> <br>
Granted, this is a rant, but I am sick of seeing stupid "Technological breakthrough" stories that involve skimping on power consumption for every little appliance in the household. Lame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon enough someone is going to produce a " Green " watch that consumes even less electricity than those that use the smallest batteries .
Someone will also invent a " Green " flashlight that uses so little power it actually makes the room darker !
What the hell ?
Are companies really so retarded that they think cutting back on some of the lowest energy usage appliances are going to save the world ?
If you really want to save the planet why not invent a water heater that does n't require heating massive resistance coils to warm water up .
Or maybe someone could invent a dishwasher that can clean pots and pans without using superheating coils to melt all forms of food and tupperware .
Or perhaps someone could invent an alternative cooking method that does n't involve superheating coils on a stovetop .
Oh wait , we have things like clothes lines , cauldrons , and BBQs .
This is the thing that bugs me .
If consumers really wanted to " Go Green , " if they really wanted to take drastic action to save the environment , all they need to do that is in place already .
Our society existed before mass distribution of electricity , and we could save a crap-ton of kW-hr ( because , you know , they have mass too ) by cutting back on some of the conveniences that really do drive power bills through the roof .
Granted , computers being left on day and night help drive up electricity bills .
This pales , in comparison , however , to something like 4 people taking 30 minute hot showers every day .
Rather than trying to pinch every bit of energy savings from every friggin ' appliance in every household , how about we just start conserving a little bit by cutting back on some of our luxuries .
Restricting showers to 10-15 minutes would drastically save on electricity for a 4 person family .
It would also save water ( which is at least as important a problem as the energy issue these days ) .
The best benefit of that kind of behavior modification : we do n't have to buy all the new green trendy BS that marketeers are spamming our lives with everyday .
Granted , this is a rant , but I am sick of seeing stupid " Technological breakthrough " stories that involve skimping on power consumption for every little appliance in the household .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon enough someone is going to produce a "Green" watch that consumes even less electricity than those that use the smallest batteries.
Someone will also invent a "Green" flashlight that uses so little power it actually makes the room darker!
What the hell?
Are companies really so retarded that they think cutting back on some of the lowest energy usage appliances are going to save the world?
If you really want to  save the planet why not invent a water heater that doesn't require heating massive resistance coils to warm water up.
Or maybe someone could invent a dishwasher that can clean pots and pans without using superheating coils to melt all forms of food and tupperware.
Or perhaps someone could invent an alternative cooking method that doesn't involve superheating coils on a stovetop.
Oh wait, we have things like clothes lines, cauldrons, and BBQs.
This is the thing that bugs me.
If consumers really wanted to "Go Green," if they really wanted to take drastic action to save the environment, all they need to do that is in place already.
Our society existed before mass distribution of electricity, and we could save a crap-ton of kW-hr (because, you know, they have mass too) by cutting back on some of the conveniences that really do drive power bills through the roof.
Granted, computers being left on day and night help drive up electricity bills.
This pales, in comparison, however, to something like 4 people taking 30 minute hot showers every day.
Rather than trying to pinch every bit of energy savings from every friggin' appliance in every household, how about we just start conserving a little bit by cutting back on some of our luxuries.
Restricting showers to 10-15 minutes would drastically save on electricity for a 4 person family.
It would also save water (which is at least as important a problem as the energy issue these days).
The best benefit of that kind of behavior modification: we don't have to buy all the new green trendy BS that marketeers are spamming our lives with everyday.
Granted, this is a rant, but I am sick of seeing stupid "Technological breakthrough" stories that involve skimping on power consumption for every little appliance in the household.
Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225903</id>
	<title>Enough already</title>
	<author>andytrevino</author>
	<datestamp>1244230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a gaming PC. Where's the SLI? Where's the upgradeability and massive hard drive space? Where's the modern graphics card -- the 9800 GT is a few generations old already, just imagine where it'll be a year or two down the road.</p><p>Stop with the silly "green" crap, seriously. This system is at best a midrange small form-factor PC with an inflated price tag. While it might play current games, it's nowhere near future-proof, and its price tag isn't low enough to justify that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a gaming PC .
Where 's the SLI ?
Where 's the upgradeability and massive hard drive space ?
Where 's the modern graphics card -- the 9800 GT is a few generations old already , just imagine where it 'll be a year or two down the road.Stop with the silly " green " crap , seriously .
This system is at best a midrange small form-factor PC with an inflated price tag .
While it might play current games , it 's nowhere near future-proof , and its price tag is n't low enough to justify that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a gaming PC.
Where's the SLI?
Where's the upgradeability and massive hard drive space?
Where's the modern graphics card -- the 9800 GT is a few generations old already, just imagine where it'll be a year or two down the road.Stop with the silly "green" crap, seriously.
This system is at best a midrange small form-factor PC with an inflated price tag.
While it might play current games, it's nowhere near future-proof, and its price tag isn't low enough to justify that fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225777</id>
	<title>Playing "Green"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Learn to juggle rocks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Learn to juggle rocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Learn to juggle rocks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</id>
	<title>I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1244229660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the one hand, this seems like a good alternative.  On the other, the notion is basically incompatible.  After all, wouldn't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden?</p><p>I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth, and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that.  Sort of like a hybrid SUV, an eco-friendly landfill, or a more merciful way to kill whales.</p><p>Some things just aren't green...</p><p>Why do I feel the need to go buy carbon credits just for posting this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , this seems like a good alternative .
On the other , the notion is basically incompatible .
After all , would n't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden ? I fear that 'green ' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth , and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that .
Sort of like a hybrid SUV , an eco-friendly landfill , or a more merciful way to kill whales.Some things just are n't green...Why do I feel the need to go buy carbon credits just for posting this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, this seems like a good alternative.
On the other, the notion is basically incompatible.
After all, wouldn't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden?I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth, and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that.
Sort of like a hybrid SUV, an eco-friendly landfill, or a more merciful way to kill whales.Some things just aren't green...Why do I feel the need to go buy carbon credits just for posting this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953</id>
	<title>300 Watts is green?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1244230800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what the hell is the <a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/" title="apple.com">Mac mini</a> [apple.com] at only 110W?</p><p>Sure, it's not a "gaming PC" but it does have a 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and the nVidia 9400M is about the same as Ion graphics too, not to mention that the Mac mini is <b>smaller</b> and <b>cheaper</b>. And yes, you can install Windows on it if you want.</p><p>So what's special about that not-so-small Maingear "green" PC again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what the hell is the Mac mini [ apple.com ] at only 110W ? Sure , it 's not a " gaming PC " but it does have a 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and the nVidia 9400M is about the same as Ion graphics too , not to mention that the Mac mini is smaller and cheaper .
And yes , you can install Windows on it if you want.So what 's special about that not-so-small Maingear " green " PC again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what the hell is the Mac mini [apple.com] at only 110W?Sure, it's not a "gaming PC" but it does have a 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and the nVidia 9400M is about the same as Ion graphics too, not to mention that the Mac mini is smaller and cheaper.
And yes, you can install Windows on it if you want.So what's special about that not-so-small Maingear "green" PC again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225799</id>
	<title>That's kind of a stretch.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those parts are outdated for anyone who cares to be on the 'bleeding edge' in gaming, and anyone who doesn't can build their own version of that rig at about half the price (ignoring the form factor). <br> <br> Given the probable lifetime energy savings of that $800 box over the $400 DIY job, plus the base environmental costs of building all those parts, you're essentially spending money to have someone else make you feel better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those parts are outdated for anyone who cares to be on the 'bleeding edge ' in gaming , and anyone who does n't can build their own version of that rig at about half the price ( ignoring the form factor ) .
Given the probable lifetime energy savings of that $ 800 box over the $ 400 DIY job , plus the base environmental costs of building all those parts , you 're essentially spending money to have someone else make you feel better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those parts are outdated for anyone who cares to be on the 'bleeding edge' in gaming, and anyone who doesn't can build their own version of that rig at about half the price (ignoring the form factor).
Given the probable lifetime energy savings of that $800 box over the $400 DIY job, plus the base environmental costs of building all those parts, you're essentially spending money to have someone else make you feel better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225889</id>
	<title>GZ's green.... ok fine greenish PC</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1244230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Materials list:<br>
1 CPU<br>
1 ACPI enabled motherboard<br>
1 Aluminum ATX case<br>
1 Copper heatsink<br>
1 UPS<br>
1 hand crank A/C generator<br>
1 set of bicycle pedals<br> <br>

Process:<br>
Build PC using CPU, motherboard, heatsink, and case. Attach bike pedals to hand crank generator. Attach generator to UPS. Pedal your way to "greener" computing and a healthier life.<br> <br>PS) I fscking HATE the term "green." Meh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Materials list : 1 CPU 1 ACPI enabled motherboard 1 Aluminum ATX case 1 Copper heatsink 1 UPS 1 hand crank A/C generator 1 set of bicycle pedals Process : Build PC using CPU , motherboard , heatsink , and case .
Attach bike pedals to hand crank generator .
Attach generator to UPS .
Pedal your way to " greener " computing and a healthier life .
PS ) I fscking HATE the term " green .
" Meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Materials list:
1 CPU
1 ACPI enabled motherboard
1 Aluminum ATX case
1 Copper heatsink
1 UPS
1 hand crank A/C generator
1 set of bicycle pedals 

Process:
Build PC using CPU, motherboard, heatsink, and case.
Attach bike pedals to hand crank generator.
Attach generator to UPS.
Pedal your way to "greener" computing and a healthier life.
PS) I fscking HATE the term "green.
" Meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227201</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244193960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for their next trick, they're targeting the auto industry, planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.</p><p>Sure, it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds, but they've gotta hop on this "green" bandwagon while they still can!</p></div><p>Koenigsegg CCX has less then 14 mpg.</p><p>From their website:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Acceleration: 0-100 km/h (0-62 mp/h) 3.2 seconds<br>0-200 km/h 9.8 sec, 0-200-0 km/h 14 sec<br>0-300-0 km/h: 29.2 Sec<br>Top Speed: 395+ km/h (245+ mph)<br>Braking distance: 32m (100-0 km/h)<br>Lateral G-force: 1.3 G<br>Fuel consumption:<br>Highway travel: 13 l/100km, Combined: 17 l/100km</p></div><p>Their newer cars have even better performance and can use ethanol fuel. They even have a car with similar performance running on batteries, but it needs 20 minutes of charging to run 500 km (310 miles).</p><p>They want to buy Saab Automobile from GM. It would be really cool if they could put their technology into mass-produced cars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for their next trick , they 're targeting the auto industry , planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.Sure , it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds , but they 've got ta hop on this " green " bandwagon while they still can ! Koenigsegg CCX has less then 14 mpg.From their website : Acceleration : 0-100 km/h ( 0-62 mp/h ) 3.2 seconds0-200 km/h 9.8 sec , 0-200-0 km/h 14 sec0-300-0 km/h : 29.2 SecTop Speed : 395 + km/h ( 245 + mph ) Braking distance : 32m ( 100-0 km/h ) Lateral G-force : 1.3 GFuel consumption : Highway travel : 13 l/100km , Combined : 17 l/100kmTheir newer cars have even better performance and can use ethanol fuel .
They even have a car with similar performance running on batteries , but it needs 20 minutes of charging to run 500 km ( 310 miles ) .They want to buy Saab Automobile from GM .
It would be really cool if they could put their technology into mass-produced cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for their next trick, they're targeting the auto industry, planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.Sure, it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds, but they've gotta hop on this "green" bandwagon while they still can!Koenigsegg CCX has less then 14 mpg.From their website:Acceleration: 0-100 km/h (0-62 mp/h) 3.2 seconds0-200 km/h 9.8 sec, 0-200-0 km/h 14 sec0-300-0 km/h: 29.2 SecTop Speed: 395+ km/h (245+ mph)Braking distance: 32m (100-0 km/h)Lateral G-force: 1.3 GFuel consumption:Highway travel: 13 l/100km, Combined: 17 l/100kmTheir newer cars have even better performance and can use ethanol fuel.
They even have a car with similar performance running on batteries, but it needs 20 minutes of charging to run 500 km (310 miles).They want to buy Saab Automobile from GM.
It would be really cool if they could put their technology into mass-produced cars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228691</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm...</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244204040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  It's a shitty non-commmital machine, just like the shitty non-commital article, and you shitty non commital comment.

<p>Take it to the <em>max</em>, dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
It 's a shitty non-commmital machine , just like the shitty non-commital article , and you shitty non commital comment .
Take it to the max , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
It's a shitty non-commmital machine, just like the shitty non-commital article, and you shitty non commital comment.
Take it to the max, dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226101</id>
	<title>Hmm . . . Well . .</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1244231580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been designing extremely power efficient computers for ages -- they're called Laptops.  Sure, it wasn't for reasons of being "Green", but rather of Battery life.  But the net effect is the same for a consumer interested in having a very power efficient box.</p><p>At any rate, these days there are some pretty decent gaming laptop configs that you could buy that I imagine could handle most gaming tasks you throw at them while being a heck of a lot more power effecient -- plus then you'd have the option of unplugging the monitor/keyboard/mouse and taking it with you and actually using it as a laptop.</p><p>Just make sure you don't throw it in the trash when you're done with it, both the batteries and LCD displays are fairly toxic .  .  .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been designing extremely power efficient computers for ages -- they 're called Laptops .
Sure , it was n't for reasons of being " Green " , but rather of Battery life .
But the net effect is the same for a consumer interested in having a very power efficient box.At any rate , these days there are some pretty decent gaming laptop configs that you could buy that I imagine could handle most gaming tasks you throw at them while being a heck of a lot more power effecient -- plus then you 'd have the option of unplugging the monitor/keyboard/mouse and taking it with you and actually using it as a laptop.Just make sure you do n't throw it in the trash when you 're done with it , both the batteries and LCD displays are fairly toxic .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been designing extremely power efficient computers for ages -- they're called Laptops.
Sure, it wasn't for reasons of being "Green", but rather of Battery life.
But the net effect is the same for a consumer interested in having a very power efficient box.At any rate, these days there are some pretty decent gaming laptop configs that you could buy that I imagine could handle most gaming tasks you throw at them while being a heck of a lot more power effecient -- plus then you'd have the option of unplugging the monitor/keyboard/mouse and taking it with you and actually using it as a laptop.Just make sure you don't throw it in the trash when you're done with it, both the batteries and LCD displays are fairly toxic .
.  .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226489</id>
	<title>How does it compare to Mac Mini</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1244233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has very similar specs to the Mac Mini and is about the same price. TFA says a 300W power supply however, 80+ means that it is (as far as I can see) EPEAT Silver or Gold. The Mac Mini has a 110W power supply so the losses will be smaller. I wonder if somebody will take those 2 machines to a test soon to see how they compare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has very similar specs to the Mac Mini and is about the same price .
TFA says a 300W power supply however , 80 + means that it is ( as far as I can see ) EPEAT Silver or Gold .
The Mac Mini has a 110W power supply so the losses will be smaller .
I wonder if somebody will take those 2 machines to a test soon to see how they compare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has very similar specs to the Mac Mini and is about the same price.
TFA says a 300W power supply however, 80+ means that it is (as far as I can see) EPEAT Silver or Gold.
The Mac Mini has a 110W power supply so the losses will be smaller.
I wonder if somebody will take those 2 machines to a test soon to see how they compare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226781</id>
	<title>Re:The Wii</title>
	<author>bluesatin</author>
	<datestamp>1244235120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But can it run Crysis?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But can it run Crysis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But can it run Crysis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095</id>
	<title>ORLY?</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1244231580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're going to power a dual core processor and a 9800 gt graphics card along with all the other hardware on a 300 watt PSU? Riiiight. Good luck getting it to run stable. Any graphics card alone passed the 7800 mark (for nvidia) tends to require a 500W PSU or greater, not including all the other gear. Green and gaming are inherently counter to each other. Gaming wants more power and more speed at the expense of cooling and energy usage. Green is the exact opposite. A Green Gaming Machine (aside from attaching green LEDs on the case) is an oximoron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going to power a dual core processor and a 9800 gt graphics card along with all the other hardware on a 300 watt PSU ?
Riiiight. Good luck getting it to run stable .
Any graphics card alone passed the 7800 mark ( for nvidia ) tends to require a 500W PSU or greater , not including all the other gear .
Green and gaming are inherently counter to each other .
Gaming wants more power and more speed at the expense of cooling and energy usage .
Green is the exact opposite .
A Green Gaming Machine ( aside from attaching green LEDs on the case ) is an oximoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going to power a dual core processor and a 9800 gt graphics card along with all the other hardware on a 300 watt PSU?
Riiiight. Good luck getting it to run stable.
Any graphics card alone passed the 7800 mark (for nvidia) tends to require a 500W PSU or greater, not including all the other gear.
Green and gaming are inherently counter to each other.
Gaming wants more power and more speed at the expense of cooling and energy usage.
Green is the exact opposite.
A Green Gaming Machine (aside from attaching green LEDs on the case) is an oximoron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225785</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>Bruiser80</author>
	<datestamp>1244229960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could upgrade bit by bit, only purchasing the items you need to get the performance boost you desire.
<br> <br>
You could theoretically keep the case, fans, dvd drives, maybe the HD between builds. Will you end up paying a little more over a bare-bones setup. Depends on where you buy and what deals you find.
<br> <br>
Re-using is more eco-friendly than recycling.
<br> <br>
On a different note, doesn't a 9800 require a power hook-up, and isn't the suggested minimum PowerSupply 400W? I thought I noticed that the last time I was looking at them... And if you're putting a Blu-Ray and a TV Tuner, aren't you going to need a larger PS?
<br> <br>
I scanned TFA and all I saw that was "green" was the CPU, PS and the vid card. I don't know if that warrants a $800 starting point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could upgrade bit by bit , only purchasing the items you need to get the performance boost you desire .
You could theoretically keep the case , fans , dvd drives , maybe the HD between builds .
Will you end up paying a little more over a bare-bones setup .
Depends on where you buy and what deals you find .
Re-using is more eco-friendly than recycling .
On a different note , does n't a 9800 require a power hook-up , and is n't the suggested minimum PowerSupply 400W ?
I thought I noticed that the last time I was looking at them... And if you 're putting a Blu-Ray and a TV Tuner , are n't you going to need a larger PS ?
I scanned TFA and all I saw that was " green " was the CPU , PS and the vid card .
I do n't know if that warrants a $ 800 starting point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could upgrade bit by bit, only purchasing the items you need to get the performance boost you desire.
You could theoretically keep the case, fans, dvd drives, maybe the HD between builds.
Will you end up paying a little more over a bare-bones setup.
Depends on where you buy and what deals you find.
Re-using is more eco-friendly than recycling.
On a different note, doesn't a 9800 require a power hook-up, and isn't the suggested minimum PowerSupply 400W?
I thought I noticed that the last time I was looking at them... And if you're putting a Blu-Ray and a TV Tuner, aren't you going to need a larger PS?
I scanned TFA and all I saw that was "green" was the CPU, PS and the vid card.
I don't know if that warrants a $800 starting point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28229441</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>anotherncbeachbum</author>
	<datestamp>1244213340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been a buzzword for a while and an overused one. Now I'm seeing ads for eco friendly and green realtors - their signs are green and tan and most of the houses they flip are painted the same scheme. The building we have at work is being marketed as green yet there is nothing green about it except for the muted earth colors it's painted. Sorry, but slapping a coat of paint on a 90yo building that has little to no insulation left is a joke at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a buzzword for a while and an overused one .
Now I 'm seeing ads for eco friendly and green realtors - their signs are green and tan and most of the houses they flip are painted the same scheme .
The building we have at work is being marketed as green yet there is nothing green about it except for the muted earth colors it 's painted .
Sorry , but slapping a coat of paint on a 90yo building that has little to no insulation left is a joke at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a buzzword for a while and an overused one.
Now I'm seeing ads for eco friendly and green realtors - their signs are green and tan and most of the houses they flip are painted the same scheme.
The building we have at work is being marketed as green yet there is nothing green about it except for the muted earth colors it's painted.
Sorry, but slapping a coat of paint on a 90yo building that has little to no insulation left is a joke at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225761</id>
	<title>Nvidia Atom</title>
	<author>obender</author>
	<datestamp>1244229840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Intel's new Ion graphics</p></div></blockquote><p>
This can only be right when the story title is: Intel buys Nvidia</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel 's new Ion graphics This can only be right when the story title is : Intel buys Nvidia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel's new Ion graphics
This can only be right when the story title is: Intel buys Nvidia
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228879</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244205480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My computer is green, but I built it based on cost and wanting to play L4D.</p><p>I have an Athlon X2 4000($70?), Asus M3N78 Pro($120), 2x1GB of RAM ($15), 8800GS ($45), a Corsair HX620 ($100), and a 640GB WD HDD($110).</p><p>Those prices are from around when I built it, which is just about a year back, and are in CAD.</p><p>Just recently I picked up a <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882715001" title="newegg.com">Kill-A-Watt</a> [newegg.com]. It turns out it consumes 170 watts when playing L4D. But if I shut off my monitor, that drops to about 135w. Then I shut off my speakers, 128w. Then I exit from L4D to the desktop, and it only consumes ~85 watts.</p><p>Oh yeah, I'm overclocked to 2.6ghz. Turns out it really isn't that hard to make a green PC that plays your target game. Mine only cost ~$500 and it does the job just fine.</p><p>My advice - go with a reputable PSU brand. That'd be Corsair, Seasonic, Silverstone, or PC P&amp;C. Seasonic makes the most efficient power supplies, and Silverstone the most stable. (According to oscilloscopes) Corsair rebrands Seasonsic PSUs, and PC P&amp;C is well known for making great(but noisy and not so efficient) single-rail PSUs, which are wonderful for heavy overclockers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My computer is green , but I built it based on cost and wanting to play L4D.I have an Athlon X2 4000 ( $ 70 ?
) , Asus M3N78 Pro ( $ 120 ) , 2x1GB of RAM ( $ 15 ) , 8800GS ( $ 45 ) , a Corsair HX620 ( $ 100 ) , and a 640GB WD HDD ( $ 110 ) .Those prices are from around when I built it , which is just about a year back , and are in CAD.Just recently I picked up a Kill-A-Watt [ newegg.com ] .
It turns out it consumes 170 watts when playing L4D .
But if I shut off my monitor , that drops to about 135w .
Then I shut off my speakers , 128w .
Then I exit from L4D to the desktop , and it only consumes ~ 85 watts.Oh yeah , I 'm overclocked to 2.6ghz .
Turns out it really is n't that hard to make a green PC that plays your target game .
Mine only cost ~ $ 500 and it does the job just fine.My advice - go with a reputable PSU brand .
That 'd be Corsair , Seasonic , Silverstone , or PC P&amp;C .
Seasonic makes the most efficient power supplies , and Silverstone the most stable .
( According to oscilloscopes ) Corsair rebrands Seasonsic PSUs , and PC P&amp;C is well known for making great ( but noisy and not so efficient ) single-rail PSUs , which are wonderful for heavy overclockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My computer is green, but I built it based on cost and wanting to play L4D.I have an Athlon X2 4000($70?
), Asus M3N78 Pro($120), 2x1GB of RAM ($15), 8800GS ($45), a Corsair HX620 ($100), and a 640GB WD HDD($110).Those prices are from around when I built it, which is just about a year back, and are in CAD.Just recently I picked up a Kill-A-Watt [newegg.com].
It turns out it consumes 170 watts when playing L4D.
But if I shut off my monitor, that drops to about 135w.
Then I shut off my speakers, 128w.
Then I exit from L4D to the desktop, and it only consumes ~85 watts.Oh yeah, I'm overclocked to 2.6ghz.
Turns out it really isn't that hard to make a green PC that plays your target game.
Mine only cost ~$500 and it does the job just fine.My advice - go with a reputable PSU brand.
That'd be Corsair, Seasonic, Silverstone, or PC P&amp;C.
Seasonic makes the most efficient power supplies, and Silverstone the most stable.
(According to oscilloscopes) Corsair rebrands Seasonsic PSUs, and PC P&amp;C is well known for making great(but noisy and not so efficient) single-rail PSUs, which are wonderful for heavy overclockers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225715</id>
	<title>Another star on my green collar! :)</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244229600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I can mount this little beast inside my hybrid-electric Hummer, Pimp My Ride Style!</p><p>Yo dawg, I heard you like irony...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I can mount this little beast inside my hybrid-electric Hummer , Pimp My Ride Style ! Yo dawg , I heard you like irony.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I can mount this little beast inside my hybrid-electric Hummer, Pimp My Ride Style!Yo dawg, I heard you like irony...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226179</id>
	<title>The greenest game to play</title>
	<author>jlebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1244231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THERMONUCLEAR WAR</p><p>Just make sure to just aim for China and the USA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THERMONUCLEAR WARJust make sure to just aim for China and the USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THERMONUCLEAR WARJust make sure to just aim for China and the USA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226015</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>paazin</author>
	<datestamp>1244231160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only green move is not to play</p></div></blockquote><p>Or just paint your box neon green with blinky green LEDs!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only green move is not to playOr just paint your box neon green with blinky green LEDs ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only green move is not to playOr just paint your box neon green with blinky green LEDs!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</id>
	<title>Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And for their next trick, they're targeting the auto industry, planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.</p><p>Sure, it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds, but they've gotta hop on this "green" bandwagon while they still can!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And for their next trick , they 're targeting the auto industry , planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.Sure , it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds , but they 've got ta hop on this " green " bandwagon while they still can !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for their next trick, they're targeting the auto industry, planning a sports car that gets 40 mpg.Sure, it may have an unimpressive 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds, but they've gotta hop on this "green" bandwagon while they still can!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and if you do, keep your current machine as long as possible.  the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture, followed by landfill at end of life.  and when you do finally replace your machine, try to replace components.  your case is still good and there's usually no need to demand a new one be made for you.  and when you replace components, try to recycle them.  even in bfe rural virginia my county accepts electronics for recycling.  chances are good that your municipality does too.  if not, then many big box stores are starting to as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and if you do , keep your current machine as long as possible .
the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture , followed by landfill at end of life .
and when you do finally replace your machine , try to replace components .
your case is still good and there 's usually no need to demand a new one be made for you .
and when you replace components , try to recycle them .
even in bfe rural virginia my county accepts electronics for recycling .
chances are good that your municipality does too .
if not , then many big box stores are starting to as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if you do, keep your current machine as long as possible.
the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture, followed by landfill at end of life.
and when you do finally replace your machine, try to replace components.
your case is still good and there's usually no need to demand a new one be made for you.
and when you replace components, try to recycle them.
even in bfe rural virginia my county accepts electronics for recycling.
chances are good that your municipality does too.
if not, then many big box stores are starting to as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225695</id>
	<title>Slashvertising...</title>
	<author>the phantom</author>
	<datestamp>1244229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mmm... Slashvertising.  How tasty!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm... Slashvertising. How tasty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm... Slashvertising.  How tasty!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226155</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm...</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1244231880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use enough paint it becomes green.</p><p>9800 is quite decent for gaming though.  I don't know why they mentioned "Intel's Ion Graphics".  For starters, Ion is made by nVidia, and it's primarily a chipset with an integrated 9400 which is pretty much garbage for gaming, AND it's for the Atom CPU, which is weak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use enough paint it becomes green.9800 is quite decent for gaming though .
I do n't know why they mentioned " Intel 's Ion Graphics " .
For starters , Ion is made by nVidia , and it 's primarily a chipset with an integrated 9400 which is pretty much garbage for gaming , AND it 's for the Atom CPU , which is weak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use enough paint it becomes green.9800 is quite decent for gaming though.
I don't know why they mentioned "Intel's Ion Graphics".
For starters, Ion is made by nVidia, and it's primarily a chipset with an integrated 9400 which is pretty much garbage for gaming, AND it's for the Atom CPU, which is weak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230993</id>
	<title>The process still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably common knowledge, but many computers are still made with toxic chemicals.</p><p>Until they can get a computer to grow off of garbage, we will likely never have a green computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably common knowledge , but many computers are still made with toxic chemicals.Until they can get a computer to grow off of garbage , we will likely never have a green computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably common knowledge, but many computers are still made with toxic chemicals.Until they can get a computer to grow off of garbage, we will likely never have a green computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671</id>
	<title>The only green move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>is not to play</htmltext>
<tokenext>is not to play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not to play</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28233463</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1244306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not by American standards.  With our oversized, inefficient engines, completely stock minivans like the Honda Odyssey can post times like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive.Not by American standards .
With our oversized , inefficient engines , completely stock minivans like the Honda Odyssey can post times like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8.4 seconds for 0-100 km/h is pretty impressive.Not by American standards.
With our oversized, inefficient engines, completely stock minivans like the Honda Odyssey can post times like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227107</id>
	<title>Re:Or...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244193420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The suggested PS may be 400W, but check the actual power usage of the various components. Don't forget, they're also talking a 300W 80+ PSU, not just any 300W PSU. Absolute worst, it'll supply 300*.8=240W. A Core 2 Duo sinks 65W max, the 9800 Eco they reference (which <a href="http://pden.zotac.com/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&amp;product\_id=160&amp;category\_id=73&amp;flypage=flypage\_images.tpl&amp;option=com\_virtuemart&amp;Itemid=1" title="zotac.com">doesn't have a secondary power connection</a> [zotac.com]) should be about 66W full-blast (A regular 9800GT is 110W max, so 110*.6=66W), then you have hard drives (~15W each max) the RAM would be maybe 20W at the very high end, a standard DVD drive is about 25... 65+66+15+20+25 is 191W, only 80\% of the capacity of the PSU when the machine is running every component full-bore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The suggested PS may be 400W , but check the actual power usage of the various components .
Do n't forget , they 're also talking a 300W 80 + PSU , not just any 300W PSU .
Absolute worst , it 'll supply 300 * .8 = 240W .
A Core 2 Duo sinks 65W max , the 9800 Eco they reference ( which does n't have a secondary power connection [ zotac.com ] ) should be about 66W full-blast ( A regular 9800GT is 110W max , so 110 * .6 = 66W ) , then you have hard drives ( ~ 15W each max ) the RAM would be maybe 20W at the very high end , a standard DVD drive is about 25... 65 + 66 + 15 + 20 + 25 is 191W , only 80 \ % of the capacity of the PSU when the machine is running every component full-bore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The suggested PS may be 400W, but check the actual power usage of the various components.
Don't forget, they're also talking a 300W 80+ PSU, not just any 300W PSU.
Absolute worst, it'll supply 300*.8=240W.
A Core 2 Duo sinks 65W max, the 9800 Eco they reference (which doesn't have a secondary power connection [zotac.com]) should be about 66W full-blast (A regular 9800GT is 110W max, so 110*.6=66W), then you have hard drives (~15W each max) the RAM would be maybe 20W at the very high end, a standard DVD drive is about 25... 65+66+15+20+25 is 191W, only 80\% of the capacity of the PSU when the machine is running every component full-bore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226677</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and at 23 mpg, I claim the worlds greenest Hummer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and at 23 mpg , I claim the worlds greenest Hummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and at 23 mpg, I claim the worlds greenest Hummer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226387</id>
	<title>Re:-intel's- ION "graphics"?</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1244232960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the CEO of Nvidia would skin any man alive that calls the ION "Intel's ION".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the CEO of Nvidia would skin any man alive that calls the ION " Intel 's ION " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the CEO of Nvidia would skin any man alive that calls the ION "Intel's ION".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227269</id>
	<title>Re:Greenest Gaming PC</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244194380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone who wants a Hummer, but still has to pay for gas? Or hell, someone who wants a Hummer that'll just go further on one tank of gas? Lots of good reasons to improve the efficiency of things. Tell me... if there were two Hummers, they both did the same job, cost about the same, and one got better mileage, would you buy the one with the worse efficiency? The only way I would is if it did a job the other one couldn't. Same with this... if this machine will play your games like you want (this is the most important thing to think about), and it costs less to run and isn't significantly different in price, you'd have to be stupid to not buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone who wants a Hummer , but still has to pay for gas ?
Or hell , someone who wants a Hummer that 'll just go further on one tank of gas ?
Lots of good reasons to improve the efficiency of things .
Tell me... if there were two Hummers , they both did the same job , cost about the same , and one got better mileage , would you buy the one with the worse efficiency ?
The only way I would is if it did a job the other one could n't .
Same with this... if this machine will play your games like you want ( this is the most important thing to think about ) , and it costs less to run and is n't significantly different in price , you 'd have to be stupid to not buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone who wants a Hummer, but still has to pay for gas?
Or hell, someone who wants a Hummer that'll just go further on one tank of gas?
Lots of good reasons to improve the efficiency of things.
Tell me... if there were two Hummers, they both did the same job, cost about the same, and one got better mileage, would you buy the one with the worse efficiency?
The only way I would is if it did a job the other one couldn't.
Same with this... if this machine will play your games like you want (this is the most important thing to think about), and it costs less to run and isn't significantly different in price, you'd have to be stupid to not buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226119</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244231700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some things just aren't green...</p></div></blockquote><p>There might be some people who like to play games but still want to keep their power consumption down a bit.  Of all the gizmos in a person's house, the computer is not really the most power hungry, nor does it waste the most power.</p><p>Just because some things are not generally associated with conservation does not mean an effort should not be made to make their power consumption more efficient.  Driving cross country isn't generally considered "green" but I'd still rather do it in a Prius than a Hummer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some things just are n't green...There might be some people who like to play games but still want to keep their power consumption down a bit .
Of all the gizmos in a person 's house , the computer is not really the most power hungry , nor does it waste the most power.Just because some things are not generally associated with conservation does not mean an effort should not be made to make their power consumption more efficient .
Driving cross country is n't generally considered " green " but I 'd still rather do it in a Prius than a Hummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some things just aren't green...There might be some people who like to play games but still want to keep their power consumption down a bit.
Of all the gizmos in a person's house, the computer is not really the most power hungry, nor does it waste the most power.Just because some things are not generally associated with conservation does not mean an effort should not be made to make their power consumption more efficient.
Driving cross country isn't generally considered "green" but I'd still rather do it in a Prius than a Hummer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28239419</id>
	<title>GREEN FTW!</title>
	<author>kaoshin</author>
	<datestamp>1244315100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm building new lower power rigs for gaming.  I'm doing this for the same reason I'm buying those new funky light bulbs.  Because energy costs are going up.  Screw the environment, and I hope it burns with all of you in it.  I just want to save money to buy more bullets.  Here is my wishlist because I think I can do fine already.  Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my green ass:
<p>
ASUS M3N78-EM (hybrid SLI, express gate, DDR2)<br>
The AMD 5050e 2.6GHz dual core - 45 watts for your ass<br>
Western Digital caviar green drive idle power doesn't suck<br>
A good nvidia card, because compromising on this doesn't result in a gaming rig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm building new lower power rigs for gaming .
I 'm doing this for the same reason I 'm buying those new funky light bulbs .
Because energy costs are going up .
Screw the environment , and I hope it burns with all of you in it .
I just want to save money to buy more bullets .
Here is my wishlist because I think I can do fine already .
Anyone who does n't like it can kiss my green ass : ASUS M3N78-EM ( hybrid SLI , express gate , DDR2 ) The AMD 5050e 2.6GHz dual core - 45 watts for your ass Western Digital caviar green drive idle power does n't suck A good nvidia card , because compromising on this does n't result in a gaming rig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm building new lower power rigs for gaming.
I'm doing this for the same reason I'm buying those new funky light bulbs.
Because energy costs are going up.
Screw the environment, and I hope it burns with all of you in it.
I just want to save money to buy more bullets.
Here is my wishlist because I think I can do fine already.
Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my green ass:

ASUS M3N78-EM (hybrid SLI, express gate, DDR2)
The AMD 5050e 2.6GHz dual core - 45 watts for your ass
Western Digital caviar green drive idle power doesn't suck
A good nvidia card, because compromising on this doesn't result in a gaming rig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226013</id>
	<title>Holy misuse of codenames, Batman!</title>
	<author>Anonymous Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1244231160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, where to begin...</p><p>"ION" is nVidia's, not Intel's.  (Only the story submitter makes this mistake, not TFA.)</p><p>"ION" is nVidia's codename for the combination of their 9400 or 9300 integrated graphics chipset plus the Intel Atom processor.  This rig uses a Core 2; which makes it *NOT* an ION.  It just makes it a Core 2 plus 9400 chipset.</p><p>And as others mention, the Mac mini is the same damn thing; only smaller, draws less power, and costs less.  (However this one has the ability to add a discrete graphics card, which the Mac mini obviously lacks.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , where to begin... " ION " is nVidia 's , not Intel 's .
( Only the story submitter makes this mistake , not TFA .
) " ION " is nVidia 's codename for the combination of their 9400 or 9300 integrated graphics chipset plus the Intel Atom processor .
This rig uses a Core 2 ; which makes it * NOT * an ION .
It just makes it a Core 2 plus 9400 chipset.And as others mention , the Mac mini is the same damn thing ; only smaller , draws less power , and costs less .
( However this one has the ability to add a discrete graphics card , which the Mac mini obviously lacks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, where to begin..."ION" is nVidia's, not Intel's.
(Only the story submitter makes this mistake, not TFA.
)"ION" is nVidia's codename for the combination of their 9400 or 9300 integrated graphics chipset plus the Intel Atom processor.
This rig uses a Core 2; which makes it *NOT* an ION.
It just makes it a Core 2 plus 9400 chipset.And as others mention, the Mac mini is the same damn thing; only smaller, draws less power, and costs less.
(However this one has the ability to add a discrete graphics card, which the Mac mini obviously lacks.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226967</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244192700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, and it gets less than 40MPG with the new ratings. I wouldn't mind a car that went faster and used less fuel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds , and it gets less than 40MPG with the new ratings .
I would n't mind a car that went faster and used less fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Corolla gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, and it gets less than 40MPG with the new ratings.
I wouldn't mind a car that went faster and used less fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227175</id>
	<title>Re:Green Trends</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244193840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't get out much, do you? There are watches out there that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_watch" title="wikipedia.org">use no electricity</a> [wikipedia.org]. In fact, they were some of the first time-keeping devices that weren't dependent on a sunny day. There are flashlights that you just shake or crank to charge, they use capacitors instead of batteries and LED's for illumination because they use energy so much more efficiently. They're usually billed as emergency flashlights if you want to buy one. A water heater that doesn't require massive resistance coils to heat up water? Gas heaters are quite common, and if you live in a sunny enough place you can use <a href="http://www1.sedo.energy.wa.gov.au/pages/solar\_hot.asp" title="wa.gov.au">solar heat to boost your water heater</a> [wa.gov.au]. That's been around since, well, forever. Hell, they sell black bags you can fill with water and hang in the sun so you can take a hot shower while camping. And for alternative cooking methods, again, gas. Quite common in many places, and preferred by chefs for more even, controllable heat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get out much , do you ?
There are watches out there that use no electricity [ wikipedia.org ] .
In fact , they were some of the first time-keeping devices that were n't dependent on a sunny day .
There are flashlights that you just shake or crank to charge , they use capacitors instead of batteries and LED 's for illumination because they use energy so much more efficiently .
They 're usually billed as emergency flashlights if you want to buy one .
A water heater that does n't require massive resistance coils to heat up water ?
Gas heaters are quite common , and if you live in a sunny enough place you can use solar heat to boost your water heater [ wa.gov.au ] .
That 's been around since , well , forever .
Hell , they sell black bags you can fill with water and hang in the sun so you can take a hot shower while camping .
And for alternative cooking methods , again , gas .
Quite common in many places , and preferred by chefs for more even , controllable heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get out much, do you?
There are watches out there that use no electricity [wikipedia.org].
In fact, they were some of the first time-keeping devices that weren't dependent on a sunny day.
There are flashlights that you just shake or crank to charge, they use capacitors instead of batteries and LED's for illumination because they use energy so much more efficiently.
They're usually billed as emergency flashlights if you want to buy one.
A water heater that doesn't require massive resistance coils to heat up water?
Gas heaters are quite common, and if you live in a sunny enough place you can use solar heat to boost your water heater [wa.gov.au].
That's been around since, well, forever.
Hell, they sell black bags you can fill with water and hang in the sun so you can take a hot shower while camping.
And for alternative cooking methods, again, gas.
Quite common in many places, and preferred by chefs for more even, controllable heat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226419</id>
	<title>Sort of...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244233080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strikes me as World's Greenest Gaming PC, is equivalent to Worlds Gentlest Rape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strikes me as World 's Greenest Gaming PC , is equivalent to Worlds Gentlest Rape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strikes me as World's Greenest Gaming PC, is equivalent to Worlds Gentlest Rape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226615</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244234100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nvidia recommends at least a 300W power supply for the <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product\_geforce\_9400gt\_us.html" title="nvidia.com">9400 GT</a> [nvidia.com], 300W or 400W for the <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product\_geforce\_9400gt\_us.html" title="nvidia.com">9600 GT</a> [nvidia.com] (depending on which model you get), and at least 400W for the <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product\_geforce\_9800gt\_us.html" title="nvidia.com">9800 GT</a> [nvidia.com].</p><p>Granted, if you run these cards with the minimum power supply rating you're going to have a hard time throwing in a RAID array or somesuch nonsense, but the machines in TFA are using 2.5" hard drives and special "ECO" 9800 GTs which use "40\% less power than a standard 9800 GT" (putting it easily under the 300W mark).</p><p>You're not going to get the same performance out of it as you would out of a beefed-up 9800GT, you're going to have a hard time upgrading one of these very much, and personally I wouldn't call this machine a "gaming PC", but they're not actually <i>lying</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nvidia recommends at least a 300W power supply for the 9400 GT [ nvidia.com ] , 300W or 400W for the 9600 GT [ nvidia.com ] ( depending on which model you get ) , and at least 400W for the 9800 GT [ nvidia.com ] .Granted , if you run these cards with the minimum power supply rating you 're going to have a hard time throwing in a RAID array or somesuch nonsense , but the machines in TFA are using 2.5 " hard drives and special " ECO " 9800 GTs which use " 40 \ % less power than a standard 9800 GT " ( putting it easily under the 300W mark ) .You 're not going to get the same performance out of it as you would out of a beefed-up 9800GT , you 're going to have a hard time upgrading one of these very much , and personally I would n't call this machine a " gaming PC " , but they 're not actually lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nvidia recommends at least a 300W power supply for the 9400 GT [nvidia.com], 300W or 400W for the 9600 GT [nvidia.com] (depending on which model you get), and at least 400W for the 9800 GT [nvidia.com].Granted, if you run these cards with the minimum power supply rating you're going to have a hard time throwing in a RAID array or somesuch nonsense, but the machines in TFA are using 2.5" hard drives and special "ECO" 9800 GTs which use "40\% less power than a standard 9800 GT" (putting it easily under the 300W mark).You're not going to get the same performance out of it as you would out of a beefed-up 9800GT, you're going to have a hard time upgrading one of these very much, and personally I wouldn't call this machine a "gaming PC", but they're not actually lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228139</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the word "rig"</title>
	<author>Jenos</author>
	<datestamp>1244200200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...really the description of a truck was only a single and relatively new use.

rig
&#226;&#226;/r&#201;g/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rig] Show IPA verb, rigged, rig&#226;...ging, noun
&#226;"verb (used with object)
1. 	Chiefly Nautical.
a. 	to put in proper order for working or use.
b. 	to fit (a ship, mast, etc.) with the necessary shrouds, stays, etc.
c. 	to fit (shrouds, stays, sails, etc.) to the mast, yard, or the like.
2. 	to furnish or provide with equipment, clothing, etc.; fit (usually fol. by out or up).
3. 	to assemble, install, or prepare (often fol. by up).
4. 	to manipulate fraudulently: to rig prices.
&#226;"noun
5. 	the arrangement of the masts, spars, sails, etc., on a boat or ship.
6. 	apparatus for some purpose; equipment; outfit; gear: a hi-fi rig; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig.
7. 	Also called drill rig. the equipment used in drilling an oil well.
8. 	any combination trucking unit in which vehicles are hooked together, as a tractor-trailer.
9. 	any kind of truck.
10. 	a carriage, buckboard, sulky, or wagon together with the horse or horses that draw it.
11. 	Informal. costume or dress, esp. when odd or conspicuous, or when designated for a particular purpose: He looks quite nifty in a butler's rig.
&#226;"Verb phrases
12. 	rig down, Nautical. to place in an inactive state, stowing all lines, tackles, and other removable parts.
13. 	rig up, to equip or set up for use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...really the description of a truck was only a single and relatively new use .
rig     /r   g/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ rig ] Show IPA verb , rigged , rig   ...ging , noun   " verb ( used with object ) 1 .
Chiefly Nautical .
a. to put in proper order for working or use .
b. to fit ( a ship , mast , etc .
) with the necessary shrouds , stays , etc .
c. to fit ( shrouds , stays , sails , etc .
) to the mast , yard , or the like .
2. to furnish or provide with equipment , clothing , etc .
; fit ( usually fol .
by out or up ) .
3. to assemble , install , or prepare ( often fol .
by up ) .
4. to manipulate fraudulently : to rig prices .
  " noun 5. the arrangement of the masts , spars , sails , etc. , on a boat or ship .
6. apparatus for some purpose ; equipment ; outfit ; gear : a hi-fi rig ; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig .
7. Also called drill rig .
the equipment used in drilling an oil well .
8. any combination trucking unit in which vehicles are hooked together , as a tractor-trailer .
9. any kind of truck .
10. a carriage , buckboard , sulky , or wagon together with the horse or horses that draw it .
11. Informal .
costume or dress , esp .
when odd or conspicuous , or when designated for a particular purpose : He looks quite nifty in a butler 's rig .
  " Verb phrases 12. rig down , Nautical .
to place in an inactive state , stowing all lines , tackles , and other removable parts .
13. rig up , to equip or set up for use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...really the description of a truck was only a single and relatively new use.
rig
ââ/rÉg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rig] Show IPA verb, rigged, rigâ...ging, noun
â"verb (used with object)
1.
Chiefly Nautical.
a. 	to put in proper order for working or use.
b. 	to fit (a ship, mast, etc.
) with the necessary shrouds, stays, etc.
c. 	to fit (shrouds, stays, sails, etc.
) to the mast, yard, or the like.
2. 	to furnish or provide with equipment, clothing, etc.
; fit (usually fol.
by out or up).
3. 	to assemble, install, or prepare (often fol.
by up).
4. 	to manipulate fraudulently: to rig prices.
â"noun
5. 	the arrangement of the masts, spars, sails, etc., on a boat or ship.
6. 	apparatus for some purpose; equipment; outfit; gear: a hi-fi rig; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig.
7. 	Also called drill rig.
the equipment used in drilling an oil well.
8. 	any combination trucking unit in which vehicles are hooked together, as a tractor-trailer.
9. 	any kind of truck.
10. 	a carriage, buckboard, sulky, or wagon together with the horse or horses that draw it.
11. 	Informal.
costume or dress, esp.
when odd or conspicuous, or when designated for a particular purpose: He looks quite nifty in a butler's rig.
â"Verb phrases
12. 	rig down, Nautical.
to place in an inactive state, stowing all lines, tackles, and other removable parts.
13. 	rig up, to equip or set up for use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225791</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>Uniquitous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I came here to say that. "Green" is just a trendy buzzword now. The current crop of airheads trying to out-do each other at who can be the greenest... have any of them read or even heard of the Mother Earth News, tried building a solar heat catcher to lower their heating bills, hell, done anything beside throw their plastic in the bin at Whole Foods and patted themselves on the back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I came here to say that .
" Green " is just a trendy buzzword now .
The current crop of airheads trying to out-do each other at who can be the greenest... have any of them read or even heard of the Mother Earth News , tried building a solar heat catcher to lower their heating bills , hell , done anything beside throw their plastic in the bin at Whole Foods and patted themselves on the back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came here to say that.
"Green" is just a trendy buzzword now.
The current crop of airheads trying to out-do each other at who can be the greenest... have any of them read or even heard of the Mother Earth News, tried building a solar heat catcher to lower their heating bills, hell, done anything beside throw their plastic in the bin at Whole Foods and patted themselves on the back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225857</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1244230320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/" title="imdb.com">WarGames</a> [imdb.com] defense!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the WarGames [ imdb.com ] defense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the WarGames [imdb.com] defense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226525</id>
	<title>Re:Small form factor?</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244233560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a nitpick.  I used to play online games via encrypted 802.11g on a laptop, and I'd regularly see 5ms ping times (round trip time), and this was in an area where there were two dozen other networks in range (i.e. there was plenty of interference).  Granted, the router's connection to the world was 15Mbps fiber, but my point is that the wireless connection was <i>not</i> a bottleneck.</p><p>Wireless is fine for online gaming, as long as you're not trying to play a hundred yards from the router.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a nitpick .
I used to play online games via encrypted 802.11g on a laptop , and I 'd regularly see 5ms ping times ( round trip time ) , and this was in an area where there were two dozen other networks in range ( i.e .
there was plenty of interference ) .
Granted , the router 's connection to the world was 15Mbps fiber , but my point is that the wireless connection was not a bottleneck.Wireless is fine for online gaming , as long as you 're not trying to play a hundred yards from the router .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a nitpick.
I used to play online games via encrypted 802.11g on a laptop, and I'd regularly see 5ms ping times (round trip time), and this was in an area where there were two dozen other networks in range (i.e.
there was plenty of interference).
Granted, the router's connection to the world was 15Mbps fiber, but my point is that the wireless connection was not a bottleneck.Wireless is fine for online gaming, as long as you're not trying to play a hundred yards from the router.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226139</id>
	<title>Corny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244231820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so corny.  Environmentalists are some of the goofiest people alive.</p><p>I like how Al Gore started up a carbon credits company just before he released a movie that encouraged people to purchase carbon credits.  And when people pointed out how much power his mansion used, he paid himself by purchasing carbon credits from his own company.</p><p>Anyway, I'm off to litter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so corny .
Environmentalists are some of the goofiest people alive.I like how Al Gore started up a carbon credits company just before he released a movie that encouraged people to purchase carbon credits .
And when people pointed out how much power his mansion used , he paid himself by purchasing carbon credits from his own company.Anyway , I 'm off to litter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so corny.
Environmentalists are some of the goofiest people alive.I like how Al Gore started up a carbon credits company just before he released a movie that encouraged people to purchase carbon credits.
And when people pointed out how much power his mansion used, he paid himself by purchasing carbon credits from his own company.Anyway, I'm off to litter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225701</id>
	<title>Eco what?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1244229600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slap together some mid range components, an ugly case and call it Prius... err Pulse.<br>It's "eco-conscious" says the article/advertisement/press release.</p><p>Too much power usage to be truly green. Too little performance to be a real gaming rig. Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slap together some mid range components , an ugly case and call it Prius... err Pulse.It 's " eco-conscious " says the article/advertisement/press release.Too much power usage to be truly green .
Too little performance to be a real gaming rig .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slap together some mid range components, an ugly case and call it Prius... err Pulse.It's "eco-conscious" says the article/advertisement/press release.Too much power usage to be truly green.
Too little performance to be a real gaming rig.
Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691</id>
	<title>Ummm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this really qualifies as either a real gaming PC or a green PC. Sure, it will play games, but I wouldn't call it a gaming PC. Same thing with green, it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green. Sure, its a good compromise but I don't think its really that green or really that much of a gaming PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this really qualifies as either a real gaming PC or a green PC .
Sure , it will play games , but I would n't call it a gaming PC .
Same thing with green , it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green .
Sure , its a good compromise but I do n't think its really that green or really that much of a gaming PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this really qualifies as either a real gaming PC or a green PC.
Sure, it will play games, but I wouldn't call it a gaming PC.
Same thing with green, it uses a bit too much power to be considered really all that green.
Sure, its a good compromise but I don't think its really that green or really that much of a gaming PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228969</id>
	<title>Hackintosh Candidate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta find out what chipset this thing uses.  Would make one hell of a Hackintosh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta find out what chipset this thing uses .
Would make one hell of a Hackintosh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta find out what chipset this thing uses.
Would make one hell of a Hackintosh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226209</id>
	<title>Is it really as efficient as possible?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1244232180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.maingear.com/products/desktops/pulse/" title="maingear.com">See here</a> [maingear.com]. The system seems to use desktop PC parts, not mobile parts: a motherboard with an nVidia chipset, a LGA 775 CPU, DDR2 memory, a micro ATX power supply. The system is using Intel desktop CPUs with 65 W TDP and a motherboard with integrated graphics.  I would expect a system using a mobile CPU and chipset to use less power.</p><p>The "greenest gaming PC" would be a system using a mobile CPU and chipset (and possibly a full desktop GPU) - something similar to the iMac's hardware, perhaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See here [ maingear.com ] .
The system seems to use desktop PC parts , not mobile parts : a motherboard with an nVidia chipset , a LGA 775 CPU , DDR2 memory , a micro ATX power supply .
The system is using Intel desktop CPUs with 65 W TDP and a motherboard with integrated graphics .
I would expect a system using a mobile CPU and chipset to use less power.The " greenest gaming PC " would be a system using a mobile CPU and chipset ( and possibly a full desktop GPU ) - something similar to the iMac 's hardware , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See here [maingear.com].
The system seems to use desktop PC parts, not mobile parts: a motherboard with an nVidia chipset, a LGA 775 CPU, DDR2 memory, a micro ATX power supply.
The system is using Intel desktop CPUs with 65 W TDP and a motherboard with integrated graphics.
I would expect a system using a mobile CPU and chipset to use less power.The "greenest gaming PC" would be a system using a mobile CPU and chipset (and possibly a full desktop GPU) - something similar to the iMac's hardware, perhaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227515</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>xav\_jones</author>
	<datestamp>1244196060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For sports car enthusiasts, its not that great.  For people with average sized genitalia, it's more than sufficient.</p></div><p>I agree completely both with the opinion that that time is not so great and that I've always felt sports car enthusiasts were compensating for something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For sports car enthusiasts , its not that great .
For people with average sized genitalia , it 's more than sufficient.I agree completely both with the opinion that that time is not so great and that I 've always felt sports car enthusiasts were compensating for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For sports car enthusiasts, its not that great.
For people with average sized genitalia, it's more than sufficient.I agree completely both with the opinion that that time is not so great and that I've always felt sports car enthusiasts were compensating for something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225987</id>
	<title>BOFH on green computing</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244231040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/bofh\_episode\_4/" title="theregister.co.uk">Oblig. BOFH</a> [theregister.co.uk]:</p><p>"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!" I blurt. "In fact, a REAL computer would have a hole in the front to push trees into and an exhaust pipe out the back for the black smoke to come out of."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig .
BOFH [ theregister.co.uk ] : " A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back !
" I blurt .
" In fact , a REAL computer would have a hole in the front to push trees into and an exhaust pipe out the back for the black smoke to come out of .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig.
BOFH [theregister.co.uk]:"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!
" I blurt.
"In fact, a REAL computer would have a hole in the front to push trees into and an exhaust pipe out the back for the black smoke to come out of.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28229043</id>
	<title>Marketing gimmick is...</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244207160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gimmicky...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gimmicky.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gimmicky...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226581</id>
	<title>"Intel's Ion" eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll find nVidia makes Ion.  Great editing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find nVidia makes Ion .
Great editing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find nVidia makes Ion.
Great editing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226417</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For sports car enthusiasts, its not that great.  For people with average sized genitalia, it's more than sufficient.</p><p>*ducks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For sports car enthusiasts , its not that great .
For people with average sized genitalia , it 's more than sufficient .
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For sports car enthusiasts, its not that great.
For people with average sized genitalia, it's more than sufficient.
*ducks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225977</id>
	<title>Re:Next up, world's most efficient sports car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you just described a toyota prius ricer. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/sweden-extreme-toyota-prius-pimped-out-mods.php</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you just described a toyota prius ricer .
http : //www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/sweden-extreme-toyota-prius-pimped-out-mods.php</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you just described a toyota prius ricer.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/sweden-extreme-toyota-prius-pimped-out-mods.php</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226709</id>
	<title>Re:I'm conflicted...</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1244234760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the one hand, this seems like a good alternative.  On the other, the notion is basically incompatible.  After all, wouldn't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden?</p></div><p>That, I believe, is a false dichotomy. The "all-or-nothing" idea is popularized by a small minority of eco-nuts who think the only way into the future is by going backward (i.e., grow all your own food, get off the grid, total rejection of consumerism, etc.). Those eco-nuts are then lambasted by right-wing nuts, who believe that minority represents the entire green movement (anti-hippie hysteria ensues). Meanwhile, they take pride in gas-guzzlers, ridicule global climate change, and generally gravitate to the extreme opposites.</p><p>"Going green" does not mean giving up on technological progress or turning backward. It is simply recognizing that our technology has the power to do awesome and terrible things, and then building (and buying) technology that takes those problems into account. Green tech is usually focused on sustainability, low power use, and small ecological footprints.</p><p>Basically, throwing away our computers entirely would be going backwards. Building computers that take less energy and remain capable of running the latest OSs, apps, and games is a greener way of going about it. Does this computer satisfy those prerequisites, is it a gimmick that's latching onto the green movement, or is it a step in the right direction? I don't really know, but it's faster in every way than my current gaming computer, which I built last year for $400 (not counting monitor and peripherals). On top of that, it uses a 300-watt power supply, compared to my 500-watts. So I dunno, maybe there's something to it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth, and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that.  Sort of like a hybrid SUV, an eco-friendly landfill, or a more merciful way to kill whales.</p></div><p>It's definitely a fashion statement. However, I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing. Instead of "creating a fashion statement," a more favorable wording would be "popularizing a meme." I think the goal of environmentalists is to push their memes up near the top of the list of things people consider when buying and building stuff. Next to cost, safety, usability, etc., they would want to see "environmental impact" as an important choice.</p><p>(Of course, there's such a thing as false advertising. Something can be overpriced, unsafe, or useless at its function, and of course something that's considered environmentally friendly actually be harmful to the environment. Yadda yadda.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , this seems like a good alternative .
On the other , the notion is basically incompatible .
After all , would n't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden ? That , I believe , is a false dichotomy .
The " all-or-nothing " idea is popularized by a small minority of eco-nuts who think the only way into the future is by going backward ( i.e. , grow all your own food , get off the grid , total rejection of consumerism , etc. ) .
Those eco-nuts are then lambasted by right-wing nuts , who believe that minority represents the entire green movement ( anti-hippie hysteria ensues ) .
Meanwhile , they take pride in gas-guzzlers , ridicule global climate change , and generally gravitate to the extreme opposites .
" Going green " does not mean giving up on technological progress or turning backward .
It is simply recognizing that our technology has the power to do awesome and terrible things , and then building ( and buying ) technology that takes those problems into account .
Green tech is usually focused on sustainability , low power use , and small ecological footprints.Basically , throwing away our computers entirely would be going backwards .
Building computers that take less energy and remain capable of running the latest OSs , apps , and games is a greener way of going about it .
Does this computer satisfy those prerequisites , is it a gimmick that 's latching onto the green movement , or is it a step in the right direction ?
I do n't really know , but it 's faster in every way than my current gaming computer , which I built last year for $ 400 ( not counting monitor and peripherals ) .
On top of that , it uses a 300-watt power supply , compared to my 500-watts .
So I dunno , maybe there 's something to it ? I fear that 'green ' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth , and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that .
Sort of like a hybrid SUV , an eco-friendly landfill , or a more merciful way to kill whales.It 's definitely a fashion statement .
However , I 'm not sure if that 's necessarily a bad thing .
Instead of " creating a fashion statement , " a more favorable wording would be " popularizing a meme .
" I think the goal of environmentalists is to push their memes up near the top of the list of things people consider when buying and building stuff .
Next to cost , safety , usability , etc. , they would want to see " environmental impact " as an important choice .
( Of course , there 's such a thing as false advertising .
Something can be overpriced , unsafe , or useless at its function , and of course something that 's considered environmentally friendly actually be harmful to the environment .
Yadda yadda .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, this seems like a good alternative.
On the other, the notion is basically incompatible.
After all, wouldn't the greenest thing of all be to simply unplug and go till your garden?That, I believe, is a false dichotomy.
The "all-or-nothing" idea is popularized by a small minority of eco-nuts who think the only way into the future is by going backward (i.e., grow all your own food, get off the grid, total rejection of consumerism, etc.).
Those eco-nuts are then lambasted by right-wing nuts, who believe that minority represents the entire green movement (anti-hippie hysteria ensues).
Meanwhile, they take pride in gas-guzzlers, ridicule global climate change, and generally gravitate to the extreme opposites.
"Going green" does not mean giving up on technological progress or turning backward.
It is simply recognizing that our technology has the power to do awesome and terrible things, and then building (and buying) technology that takes those problems into account.
Green tech is usually focused on sustainability, low power use, and small ecological footprints.Basically, throwing away our computers entirely would be going backwards.
Building computers that take less energy and remain capable of running the latest OSs, apps, and games is a greener way of going about it.
Does this computer satisfy those prerequisites, is it a gimmick that's latching onto the green movement, or is it a step in the right direction?
I don't really know, but it's faster in every way than my current gaming computer, which I built last year for $400 (not counting monitor and peripherals).
On top of that, it uses a 300-watt power supply, compared to my 500-watts.
So I dunno, maybe there's something to it?I fear that 'green' is becoming more about fashion than it is about the Earth, and the notion of a green way to do a very non-green thing seems to support that.
Sort of like a hybrid SUV, an eco-friendly landfill, or a more merciful way to kill whales.It's definitely a fashion statement.
However, I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing.
Instead of "creating a fashion statement," a more favorable wording would be "popularizing a meme.
" I think the goal of environmentalists is to push their memes up near the top of the list of things people consider when buying and building stuff.
Next to cost, safety, usability, etc., they would want to see "environmental impact" as an important choice.
(Of course, there's such a thing as false advertising.
Something can be overpriced, unsafe, or useless at its function, and of course something that's considered environmentally friendly actually be harmful to the environment.
Yadda yadda.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225743</id>
	<title>Typo</title>
	<author>SwabTheDeck</author>
	<datestamp>1244229720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>coming with Intel's new Ion graphics as default option</p></div><p>
Ion is an nVidia product, not an Intel product.  The terms "Intel graphics" and "gaming PC" should never be used together.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>coming with Intel 's new Ion graphics as default option Ion is an nVidia product , not an Intel product .
The terms " Intel graphics " and " gaming PC " should never be used together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coming with Intel's new Ion graphics as default option
Ion is an nVidia product, not an Intel product.
The terms "Intel graphics" and "gaming PC" should never be used together.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227229</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244194140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...have you even looked at the numbers? The 9800GT <em>Eco</em> that they reference uses 40\% less power than the "normal" one. The normal one is only 110W so that's what, 66W?. A Core 2 Duo is only 65W flat-out. Then you have an optical drive (25W), a hard drive (10-15W), RAM(10-15W) and other various chips (10-20W). That's only 206W if you run every component flat-out simultaneously and spin up both drives from powered off (which will never happen) and use the worst numbers I give you. The 300W power supply they propose is 80\% or more efficient, so that's 240W available at the very lowest, which is still well above what will ever be used in normal circumstances. Don't be a retard... those huge power supplies are not necessary. Hell, you could probably even use a standard 9800GT and maybe kick the PSU up to a 350W if you were really worried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...have you even looked at the numbers ?
The 9800GT Eco that they reference uses 40 \ % less power than the " normal " one .
The normal one is only 110W so that 's what , 66W ? .
A Core 2 Duo is only 65W flat-out .
Then you have an optical drive ( 25W ) , a hard drive ( 10-15W ) , RAM ( 10-15W ) and other various chips ( 10-20W ) .
That 's only 206W if you run every component flat-out simultaneously and spin up both drives from powered off ( which will never happen ) and use the worst numbers I give you .
The 300W power supply they propose is 80 \ % or more efficient , so that 's 240W available at the very lowest , which is still well above what will ever be used in normal circumstances .
Do n't be a retard... those huge power supplies are not necessary .
Hell , you could probably even use a standard 9800GT and maybe kick the PSU up to a 350W if you were really worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...have you even looked at the numbers?
The 9800GT Eco that they reference uses 40\% less power than the "normal" one.
The normal one is only 110W so that's what, 66W?.
A Core 2 Duo is only 65W flat-out.
Then you have an optical drive (25W), a hard drive (10-15W), RAM(10-15W) and other various chips (10-20W).
That's only 206W if you run every component flat-out simultaneously and spin up both drives from powered off (which will never happen) and use the worst numbers I give you.
The 300W power supply they propose is 80\% or more efficient, so that's 240W available at the very lowest, which is still well above what will ever be used in normal circumstances.
Don't be a retard... those huge power supplies are not necessary.
Hell, you could probably even use a standard 9800GT and maybe kick the PSU up to a 350W if you were really worried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227877</id>
	<title>Re:The only green move</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244198400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture</p></div><p> On the other hand, smoking pot is actually quite environment-friendly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture On the other hand , smoking pot is actually quite environment-friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the manufacturing process is the most ecologically unfriendly aspect of computer manufacture On the other hand, smoking pot is actually quite environment-friendly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230627</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the word "rig"</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1244230620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>Before computer geeks started using "rig" to refer to their computers, the only commonly used meaning was large trucks, e.g., 18-wheelers.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>No, it actually comes from sailing.  The rigging is the combination of all the sails, spars, and cordage that make the boat move.  It's been a general term for much longer than big rigs have existed.  It's not posing, that's the way language works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before computer geeks started using " rig " to refer to their computers , the only commonly used meaning was large trucks , e.g. , 18-wheelers .
No , it actually comes from sailing .
The rigging is the combination of all the sails , spars , and cordage that make the boat move .
It 's been a general term for much longer than big rigs have existed .
It 's not posing , that 's the way language works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before computer geeks started using "rig" to refer to their computers, the only commonly used meaning was large trucks, e.g., 18-wheelers.
No, it actually comes from sailing.
The rigging is the combination of all the sails, spars, and cordage that make the boat move.
It's been a general term for much longer than big rigs have existed.
It's not posing, that's the way language works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226473</id>
	<title>Greenest Gaming PC</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1244233380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is like the most fuel-efficient Hummer. Who cares about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is like the most fuel-efficient Hummer .
Who cares about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is like the most fuel-efficient Hummer.
Who cares about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226973</id>
	<title>Bash away, it deserves it...</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244192760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I would never buy the thing because it has a completely fugly graphic on the case, but.... these guys are building more or less exactly the kind of PC that I try to build for myself - as much computing power as I can reasonably get without blowing out the $$$ or power budget, enough to play some games, but Crysis is totally optional...<br> <br>

As someone said above, the MacMini is a very nicely executed example of this theme, and in a much more tasteful case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never buy the thing because it has a completely fugly graphic on the case , but.... these guys are building more or less exactly the kind of PC that I try to build for myself - as much computing power as I can reasonably get without blowing out the $ $ $ or power budget , enough to play some games , but Crysis is totally optional.. . As someone said above , the MacMini is a very nicely executed example of this theme , and in a much more tasteful case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I would never buy the thing because it has a completely fugly graphic on the case, but.... these guys are building more or less exactly the kind of PC that I try to build for myself - as much computing power as I can reasonably get without blowing out the $$$ or power budget, enough to play some games, but Crysis is totally optional... 

As someone said above, the MacMini is a very nicely executed example of this theme, and in a much more tasteful case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159</id>
	<title>I hate the word "rig"</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1244193780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[crank mode=on]<br>Am I the only person who's irritated by this use of the word "rig"?</p><p>Before computer geeks started using "rig" to refer to their computers, the only commonly used meaning was large trucks, e.g., 18-wheelers.</p><p>To call a computer a "rig" irritates me for the same reason that the term "domestic <i>engineer</i>" bothers me: it's trying to gain respect by stealing the respect rightfully earned by the thing to which the word traditionally refers.</p><p>Long-story short, it's posing.<br>[crank mode=off]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ crank mode = on ] Am I the only person who 's irritated by this use of the word " rig " ? Before computer geeks started using " rig " to refer to their computers , the only commonly used meaning was large trucks , e.g. , 18-wheelers.To call a computer a " rig " irritates me for the same reason that the term " domestic engineer " bothers me : it 's trying to gain respect by stealing the respect rightfully earned by the thing to which the word traditionally refers.Long-story short , it 's posing .
[ crank mode = off ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[crank mode=on]Am I the only person who's irritated by this use of the word "rig"?Before computer geeks started using "rig" to refer to their computers, the only commonly used meaning was large trucks, e.g., 18-wheelers.To call a computer a "rig" irritates me for the same reason that the term "domestic engineer" bothers me: it's trying to gain respect by stealing the respect rightfully earned by the thing to which the word traditionally refers.Long-story short, it's posing.
[crank mode=off]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230843</id>
	<title>Re:300 Watts is green?</title>
	<author>tknd</author>
	<datestamp>1244320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded up? The quoted numbers from the parent are for maximum load power, not <b>typical</b> power. I have a machine sitting right here with a 500W PSU, but does that mean it uses all 500W? Of course not, when hooked up to a "kill-a-watt" the readings are around 80w during normal loads.

</p><p>I doubt both the mac mini and this "green" pc use the maximum power offered by the power supplies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded up ?
The quoted numbers from the parent are for maximum load power , not typical power .
I have a machine sitting right here with a 500W PSU , but does that mean it uses all 500W ?
Of course not , when hooked up to a " kill-a-watt " the readings are around 80w during normal loads .
I doubt both the mac mini and this " green " pc use the maximum power offered by the power supplies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded up?
The quoted numbers from the parent are for maximum load power, not typical power.
I have a machine sitting right here with a 500W PSU, but does that mean it uses all 500W?
Of course not, when hooked up to a "kill-a-watt" the readings are around 80w during normal loads.
I doubt both the mac mini and this "green" pc use the maximum power offered by the power supplies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226771</id>
	<title>Re:-intel's- ION "graphics"?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1244235060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the "livis" part in the middle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the " livis " part in the middle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the "livis" part in the middle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28229441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28231605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28233463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28231605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28229441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28228139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28230843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28225977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28226417
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28227515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550225.28233463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
