<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1341210</id>
	<title>Real Nanotechnology Getting Closer, Says Drexler</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245079800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.destinyland.org/" rel="nofollow">destinyland</a> writes <i>"Sun Microsystems has helped fund a <a href="http://e-drexler.com/d/07/00/1204TechnologyRoadmap.html">198-page nanotechnology roadmap</a> &mdash; but <a href="http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/how-close-are-we-real-nanotechnology">how
close are we to real nanotechnology?</a> A science writer asked four nano pioneers, including
K. Eric Dexler ('progress is accelerating') and Ralph Merkle ('the exponential trends continue to be exponential') Though we don't have Star Trek replicators yet, the article lists some surprising recent nano developments (artificial tissue, nanoparticle sheets, ultrathin diamond nanorods).
And the roadmap's scientists are envisioning targeted cancer therapies, super-efficient solar cells, high-density computer memory chips and even responsive 'smart' materials."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>destinyland writes " Sun Microsystems has helped fund a 198-page nanotechnology roadmap    but how close are we to real nanotechnology ?
A science writer asked four nano pioneers , including K. Eric Dexler ( 'progress is accelerating ' ) and Ralph Merkle ( 'the exponential trends continue to be exponential ' ) Though we do n't have Star Trek replicators yet , the article lists some surprising recent nano developments ( artificial tissue , nanoparticle sheets , ultrathin diamond nanorods ) .
And the roadmap 's scientists are envisioning targeted cancer therapies , super-efficient solar cells , high-density computer memory chips and even responsive 'smart ' materials .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destinyland writes "Sun Microsystems has helped fund a 198-page nanotechnology roadmap — but how
close are we to real nanotechnology?
A science writer asked four nano pioneers, including
K. Eric Dexler ('progress is accelerating') and Ralph Merkle ('the exponential trends continue to be exponential') Though we don't have Star Trek replicators yet, the article lists some surprising recent nano developments (artificial tissue, nanoparticle sheets, ultrathin diamond nanorods).
And the roadmap's scientists are envisioning targeted cancer therapies, super-efficient solar cells, high-density computer memory chips and even responsive 'smart' materials.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335793</id>
	<title>Java</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to JavaNE.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to JavaNE .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to JavaNE.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336159</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replicator technology, not Replicators (tm) the race of sentient replicating... wait a dag gun moment...</p><p>Wesley crusher created self-aware Nanites that nearly destroyed the enterprise.  Did he let them loose in the Pegasus galaxy to later be known as Replicators???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replicator technology , not Replicators ( tm ) the race of sentient replicating... wait a dag gun moment...Wesley crusher created self-aware Nanites that nearly destroyed the enterprise .
Did he let them loose in the Pegasus galaxy to later be known as Replicators ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replicator technology, not Replicators (tm) the race of sentient replicating... wait a dag gun moment...Wesley crusher created self-aware Nanites that nearly destroyed the enterprise.
Did he let them loose in the Pegasus galaxy to later be known as Replicators??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336121</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Grr</author>
	<datestamp>1245084840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The replicators from star trek are machines that produce items from raw matter. Much like the matter compilers from Neal Stephenson's diamond age they would probably operate using nanotechnology. <br>
The replicators from stargate seem to be self replicating robots. Not sure what they have to do with nanotechnology. You probably know better than me since I never managed to watch a whole episode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The replicators from star trek are machines that produce items from raw matter .
Much like the matter compilers from Neal Stephenson 's diamond age they would probably operate using nanotechnology .
The replicators from stargate seem to be self replicating robots .
Not sure what they have to do with nanotechnology .
You probably know better than me since I never managed to watch a whole episode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The replicators from star trek are machines that produce items from raw matter.
Much like the matter compilers from Neal Stephenson's diamond age they would probably operate using nanotechnology.
The replicators from stargate seem to be self replicating robots.
Not sure what they have to do with nanotechnology.
You probably know better than me since I never managed to watch a whole episode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</id>
	<title>"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>weren't the replicators from stargate and not from star trek? don't mind me if I'm wrong, I've just memorized every single stargate episode...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>were n't the replicators from stargate and not from star trek ?
do n't mind me if I 'm wrong , I 've just memorized every single stargate episode.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>weren't the replicators from stargate and not from star trek?
don't mind me if I'm wrong, I've just memorized every single stargate episode...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336631</id>
	<title>Membrane technology already there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well membrane technology could apply as nanotechnology. Certain membranes on the market can sieve protiens or even seperate ions.</p><p>The scale of the pores is in the angstrom region.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well membrane technology could apply as nanotechnology .
Certain membranes on the market can sieve protiens or even seperate ions.The scale of the pores is in the angstrom region .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well membrane technology could apply as nanotechnology.
Certain membranes on the market can sieve protiens or even seperate ions.The scale of the pores is in the angstrom region.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336451</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we already have it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you answered that for your self they are called "Micro"chips for a reason</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you answered that for your self they are called " Micro " chips for a reason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you answered that for your self they are called "Micro"chips for a reason</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345527</id>
	<title>Re:5 to 10 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245146460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's pretty optimistic. If you RTFA, they're estimating 20-30 years.</p></div><p>Like artificial intelligence, fusion power and a cure for cancer ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty optimistic .
If you RTFA , they 're estimating 20-30 years.Like artificial intelligence , fusion power and a cure for cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty optimistic.
If you RTFA, they're estimating 20-30 years.Like artificial intelligence, fusion power and a cure for cancer ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336645</id>
	<title>Re:All this...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1245087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Self milking cows?</i></p><p>I know you are being humorous, but they featured a self milking cow turnstyle on "Dirty Jobs". Cows would walk on this slowly turning merry go round and a robot would attach milking devices to them and they would ride around to the other side of the room where it would let them off when they are finished.</p><p>Apparently the cows liked it and pretty much knew what to do to get on and off the platform.</p><p>Mike still had to clean the poo which no one had built a robot to clean up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Self milking cows ? I know you are being humorous , but they featured a self milking cow turnstyle on " Dirty Jobs " .
Cows would walk on this slowly turning merry go round and a robot would attach milking devices to them and they would ride around to the other side of the room where it would let them off when they are finished.Apparently the cows liked it and pretty much knew what to do to get on and off the platform.Mike still had to clean the poo which no one had built a robot to clean up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Self milking cows?I know you are being humorous, but they featured a self milking cow turnstyle on "Dirty Jobs".
Cows would walk on this slowly turning merry go round and a robot would attach milking devices to them and they would ride around to the other side of the room where it would let them off when they are finished.Apparently the cows liked it and pretty much knew what to do to get on and off the platform.Mike still had to clean the poo which no one had built a robot to clean up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336531</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1245086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, the goo growing in your bathroom sink, notably without the benefit of a 10+billion dollar fab and cleanroom conditions, is pumping out structures that small more or less continually. Top down is, indeed, beating bottom up in the limited realm of what we know how to do; but bottom up has been kicking ass everywhere else since not so long after the planet cooled a bit.<br> <br>

Bottom-up assembly is certainly a long-term basic research type project(unless you count the sort of temperature and composition control tricks that metallurgists have been using to produce desired crystal structures for centuries, among other things); but it is ultimately a very desirable skill to pick up. As long as we have to fab them top down, nanotech materials are going to be confined to niche applications(Sure, semiconductors are common; but compared to concrete and steel?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the goo growing in your bathroom sink , notably without the benefit of a 10 + billion dollar fab and cleanroom conditions , is pumping out structures that small more or less continually .
Top down is , indeed , beating bottom up in the limited realm of what we know how to do ; but bottom up has been kicking ass everywhere else since not so long after the planet cooled a bit .
Bottom-up assembly is certainly a long-term basic research type project ( unless you count the sort of temperature and composition control tricks that metallurgists have been using to produce desired crystal structures for centuries , among other things ) ; but it is ultimately a very desirable skill to pick up .
As long as we have to fab them top down , nanotech materials are going to be confined to niche applications ( Sure , semiconductors are common ; but compared to concrete and steel ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the goo growing in your bathroom sink, notably without the benefit of a 10+billion dollar fab and cleanroom conditions, is pumping out structures that small more or less continually.
Top down is, indeed, beating bottom up in the limited realm of what we know how to do; but bottom up has been kicking ass everywhere else since not so long after the planet cooled a bit.
Bottom-up assembly is certainly a long-term basic research type project(unless you count the sort of temperature and composition control tricks that metallurgists have been using to produce desired crystal structures for centuries, among other things); but it is ultimately a very desirable skill to pick up.
As long as we have to fab them top down, nanotech materials are going to be confined to niche applications(Sure, semiconductors are common; but compared to concrete and steel?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336081</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1245084660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that in Stargate it would be Replicators, an alien race (hence the capitalization just like Vulcans not vulcans). Star Trek had replicators that produced all kinds of things on command (most frequently food stuff). However, Star Trek replicators were based on transporter technology so they were not in any way related to nanotech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that in Stargate it would be Replicators , an alien race ( hence the capitalization just like Vulcans not vulcans ) .
Star Trek had replicators that produced all kinds of things on command ( most frequently food stuff ) .
However , Star Trek replicators were based on transporter technology so they were not in any way related to nanotech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that in Stargate it would be Replicators, an alien race (hence the capitalization just like Vulcans not vulcans).
Star Trek had replicators that produced all kinds of things on command (most frequently food stuff).
However, Star Trek replicators were based on transporter technology so they were not in any way related to nanotech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336027</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Emb3rz</author>
	<datestamp>1245084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Star Trek had replicators too, but they were stationary units that 'replicated' various physical objects/materials that a crew member might need. They were commonly seen in the dining areas where one could order whatever form of food or drink the computer had stored the recipes for. It would convert pure energy into matter of the right specification. After a person was done with their utensils and/or dishes they would put them in a special spot to be reclaimed into energy later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek had replicators too , but they were stationary units that 'replicated ' various physical objects/materials that a crew member might need .
They were commonly seen in the dining areas where one could order whatever form of food or drink the computer had stored the recipes for .
It would convert pure energy into matter of the right specification .
After a person was done with their utensils and/or dishes they would put them in a special spot to be reclaimed into energy later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek had replicators too, but they were stationary units that 'replicated' various physical objects/materials that a crew member might need.
They were commonly seen in the dining areas where one could order whatever form of food or drink the computer had stored the recipes for.
It would convert pure energy into matter of the right specification.
After a person was done with their utensils and/or dishes they would put them in a special spot to be reclaimed into energy later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339571</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>hajus</author>
	<datestamp>1245099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not nanotechnology because nanotech is based on the concept of replacable parts.  Every carbon atom is replacable by any other carbon atom.  Every lithium atom, with all it's electrochemical properties is replacable by any other lithium atom.  Atoms are treated as parts of an assembly.  When you make machines that are just small or in the nanometer range without using atoms are replacable parts, you're not using nanotechnology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not nanotechnology because nanotech is based on the concept of replacable parts .
Every carbon atom is replacable by any other carbon atom .
Every lithium atom , with all it 's electrochemical properties is replacable by any other lithium atom .
Atoms are treated as parts of an assembly .
When you make machines that are just small or in the nanometer range without using atoms are replacable parts , you 're not using nanotechnology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not nanotechnology because nanotech is based on the concept of replacable parts.
Every carbon atom is replacable by any other carbon atom.
Every lithium atom, with all it's electrochemical properties is replacable by any other lithium atom.
Atoms are treated as parts of an assembly.
When you make machines that are just small or in the nanometer range without using atoms are replacable parts, you're not using nanotechnology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336003</id>
	<title>When do we all get to be skinny and beautiful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget all that other stuff - where's the nano-bots that we can inject into fatty tissue, to deconstruct fat and make everyone gorgeous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget all that other stuff - where 's the nano-bots that we can inject into fatty tissue , to deconstruct fat and make everyone gorgeous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget all that other stuff - where's the nano-bots that we can inject into fatty tissue, to deconstruct fat and make everyone gorgeous?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337333</id>
	<title>If Nanotech is scale closer to nm than um</title>
	<author>DanielRavenNest</author>
	<datestamp>1245090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you define nanotech as technology of scale closer to a nanometer than a micrometer, ie less than 30 nm, then we are one chip fabrication generation away from it at the moment.</p><p>As was pointed out above, the thickness of some semiconductor layers already is down in the couple of nm range, the 30nm I refer to is the length and width of features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you define nanotech as technology of scale closer to a nanometer than a micrometer , ie less than 30 nm , then we are one chip fabrication generation away from it at the moment.As was pointed out above , the thickness of some semiconductor layers already is down in the couple of nm range , the 30nm I refer to is the length and width of features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you define nanotech as technology of scale closer to a nanometer than a micrometer, ie less than 30 nm, then we are one chip fabrication generation away from it at the moment.As was pointed out above, the thickness of some semiconductor layers already is down in the couple of nm range, the 30nm I refer to is the length and width of features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336061</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1245084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak to stargate, but I do know that replicators are in star trek. They first showed up in The Next Generation, which began in 1987.</p><p>In the show, they were usually used to make food, but could also be used to make anything anyone could dream up (they had some excuse re: why they couldn't just replicate starships, I forget what it was). They could also disassembled the dishes and scraps when someone was done, too.</p><p>I believe they were supposed to work by using transporter-like technology to assemble, atom-by-atom, the item requested. Presumably the raw materials were stored in some hold on the ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak to stargate , but I do know that replicators are in star trek .
They first showed up in The Next Generation , which began in 1987.In the show , they were usually used to make food , but could also be used to make anything anyone could dream up ( they had some excuse re : why they could n't just replicate starships , I forget what it was ) .
They could also disassembled the dishes and scraps when someone was done , too.I believe they were supposed to work by using transporter-like technology to assemble , atom-by-atom , the item requested .
Presumably the raw materials were stored in some hold on the ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak to stargate, but I do know that replicators are in star trek.
They first showed up in The Next Generation, which began in 1987.In the show, they were usually used to make food, but could also be used to make anything anyone could dream up (they had some excuse re: why they couldn't just replicate starships, I forget what it was).
They could also disassembled the dishes and scraps when someone was done, too.I believe they were supposed to work by using transporter-like technology to assemble, atom-by-atom, the item requested.
Presumably the raw materials were stored in some hold on the ship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345409</id>
	<title>NANO Starpharma condom, meds, military, industrial</title>
	<author>kbamfield</author>
	<datestamp>1245144420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An Australian company named Starpharma seems to be well out in front.
go here to read what they have in the market and whats about to be released
<a href="http://www.starpharma.com/" title="starpharma.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.starpharma.com/</a> [starpharma.com]

I always tell my friends imaging life before plastic
then imaging the same changes will occur when nano products are readily available in the market

Starpharma already has products in the market and one interesting anti viral gel for herpes, AIDS, HPV, just about to be released

Disclaimer: i own shares in the company - SPL</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Australian company named Starpharma seems to be well out in front .
go here to read what they have in the market and whats about to be released http : //www.starpharma.com/ [ starpharma.com ] I always tell my friends imaging life before plastic then imaging the same changes will occur when nano products are readily available in the market Starpharma already has products in the market and one interesting anti viral gel for herpes , AIDS , HPV , just about to be released Disclaimer : i own shares in the company - SPL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Australian company named Starpharma seems to be well out in front.
go here to read what they have in the market and whats about to be released
http://www.starpharma.com/ [starpharma.com]

I always tell my friends imaging life before plastic
then imaging the same changes will occur when nano products are readily available in the market

Starpharma already has products in the market and one interesting anti viral gel for herpes, AIDS, HPV, just about to be released

Disclaimer: i own shares in the company - SPL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335815</id>
	<title>anal sex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wooo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wooo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wooo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336281</id>
	<title>nanotech is proof</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that most scientists these days are 99\% PT Barnum, 1\% scientist.</p><p>I was watching this show called "The Universe" the other day, and they had all these cosmologists on. Ha! "Cosmologists". I'd be embarrassed to call myself a cosmologist. Everything they know right now is going to be considered wrong in 10 years!</p><p>"Science", my fanny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that most scientists these days are 99 \ % PT Barnum , 1 \ % scientist.I was watching this show called " The Universe " the other day , and they had all these cosmologists on .
Ha ! " Cosmologists " .
I 'd be embarrassed to call myself a cosmologist .
Everything they know right now is going to be considered wrong in 10 years !
" Science " , my fanny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that most scientists these days are 99\% PT Barnum, 1\% scientist.I was watching this show called "The Universe" the other day, and they had all these cosmologists on.
Ha! "Cosmologists".
I'd be embarrassed to call myself a cosmologist.
Everything they know right now is going to be considered wrong in 10 years!
"Science", my fanny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28340207</id>
	<title>ULTRA!</title>
	<author>barryfandango</author>
	<datestamp>1245058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really necessary to prefix "diamond nanorods" with "ultrathin"?

Is this to differentiate them from superfat diamond nanorods?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really necessary to prefix " diamond nanorods " with " ultrathin " ?
Is this to differentiate them from superfat diamond nanorods ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really necessary to prefix "diamond nanorods" with "ultrathin"?
Is this to differentiate them from superfat diamond nanorods?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336527</id>
	<title>Nano tech road map.</title>
	<author>Odinson</author>
	<datestamp>1245086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com/nano-stages.shtml" title="thickertha...hebook.com">What's next after nano materials?</a> [thickertha...hebook.com]  Radical shifts in government and society.  Comments welcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next after nano materials ?
[ thickertha...hebook.com ] Radical shifts in government and society .
Comments welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next after nano materials?
[thickertha...hebook.com]  Radical shifts in government and society.
Comments welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28338113</id>
	<title>Nano is old hat</title>
	<author>jebrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget nano, my 4 year old processor was created using a 9000 femtometer process!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget nano , my 4 year old processor was created using a 9000 femtometer process !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget nano, my 4 year old processor was created using a 9000 femtometer process!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847</id>
	<title>5 to 10 years.</title>
	<author>locster</author>
	<datestamp>1245083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, 5 to 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , 5 to 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, 5 to 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336617</id>
	<title>Mod parent "hilarious +10"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a good chuckle.</p><p>"Yeah i'll have a cheese pizza with pepperoni"<br>"Do you want metal-burning acid on your face with that?" PFFTTZZZ<br>"AAH, THANK YOU REPLICATOR OVERLORDS"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a good chuckle .
" Yeah i 'll have a cheese pizza with pepperoni " " Do you want metal-burning acid on your face with that ?
" PFFTTZZZ " AAH , THANK YOU REPLICATOR OVERLORDS "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a good chuckle.
"Yeah i'll have a cheese pizza with pepperoni""Do you want metal-burning acid on your face with that?
" PFFTTZZZ"AAH, THANK YOU REPLICATOR OVERLORDS"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336435</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1245086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a guy in Hong Kong who can deactivate nanotech kill switches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a guy in Hong Kong who can deactivate nanotech kill switches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a guy in Hong Kong who can deactivate nanotech kill switches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336697</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245087300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, we are already building electronic components at nanometer scales. But when people talk about nanotechnology, they are usually thinking of mechanical devices built from nanometer scale components, or larger structures which exhibit new properties based on manufactured, nanometer scale features.</p><p>The industry for these applications has hardly even begun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , we are already building electronic components at nanometer scales .
But when people talk about nanotechnology , they are usually thinking of mechanical devices built from nanometer scale components , or larger structures which exhibit new properties based on manufactured , nanometer scale features.The industry for these applications has hardly even begun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, we are already building electronic components at nanometer scales.
But when people talk about nanotechnology, they are usually thinking of mechanical devices built from nanometer scale components, or larger structures which exhibit new properties based on manufactured, nanometer scale features.The industry for these applications has hardly even begun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28340813</id>
	<title>Re:"Star Trek replicators"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245060780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you silly fool, the nanites were implanted on  Kavis Alpha IV</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you silly fool , the nanites were implanted on Kavis Alpha IV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you silly fool, the nanites were implanted on  Kavis Alpha IV</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336575</id>
	<title>Re:That's Stargate, not Star Trek</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly,</p><p>It only took <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=replicator&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">3 seconds in google</a> [google.com] to check to see if Star Trek had replicators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly,It only took 3 seconds in google [ google.com ] to check to see if Star Trek had replicators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly,It only took 3 seconds in google [google.com] to check to see if Star Trek had replicators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337069</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why my son was born at home.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p><p>Seriously, though, it is going to be pretty hard to do something like that. Sure, most Americans do the sheep thing and have their children removed from the mothers at hospitals, often via unnecessary C-section, as well as other unnecessary procedures immediately following birth. But there is a large, possibly growing, minority that don't bother with the whole obgyn or hospital thing.</p><p>thoromyr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why my son was born at home .
; ^ ) Seriously , though , it is going to be pretty hard to do something like that .
Sure , most Americans do the sheep thing and have their children removed from the mothers at hospitals , often via unnecessary C-section , as well as other unnecessary procedures immediately following birth .
But there is a large , possibly growing , minority that do n't bother with the whole obgyn or hospital thing.thoromyr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why my son was born at home.
;^)Seriously, though, it is going to be pretty hard to do something like that.
Sure, most Americans do the sheep thing and have their children removed from the mothers at hospitals, often via unnecessary C-section, as well as other unnecessary procedures immediately following birth.
But there is a large, possibly growing, minority that don't bother with the whole obgyn or hospital thing.thoromyr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336449</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body. I'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good.</p></div><p>Until someone stages a coup by hacking the "kill switch" of the entire executive and legislative branches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body .
I 'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good.Until someone stages a coup by hacking the " kill switch " of the entire executive and legislative branches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body.
I'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good.Until someone stages a coup by hacking the "kill switch" of the entire executive and legislative branches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336267</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we already have it</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1245085380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought was that we already had nanotechnology. Microchips would count. Hell, we already manipulate bacteria to make things like insulin, clotting factors, and other stuff for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that we already had nanotechnology .
Microchips would count .
Hell , we already manipulate bacteria to make things like insulin , clotting factors , and other stuff for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that we already had nanotechnology.
Microchips would count.
Hell, we already manipulate bacteria to make things like insulin, clotting factors, and other stuff for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335903</id>
	<title>Law of Accelerating Returns...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"progress is accelerating"<br>"the exponential trends continue to be exponential"</p><p>Like you guys always say, that Kurzweil is such a crank, isn't he?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" progress is accelerating " " the exponential trends continue to be exponential " Like you guys always say , that Kurzweil is such a crank , is n't he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"progress is accelerating""the exponential trends continue to be exponential"Like you guys always say, that Kurzweil is such a crank, isn't he?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337573</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is that in current tech, design and assembly are not precise at the atomic level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that in current tech , design and assembly are not precise at the atomic level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that in current tech, design and assembly are not precise at the atomic level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1245087660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The achievements of the lithography industry are absolutely stunning. And if you want to call them a branch of nanotechnology, that's fine too.<br> <br>

But they have not achieved the holy grail of nanotechnology, and the tricks of lithography never will. The holy grail is atomic-level precision; not just in restricted circumstances (e.g. single atomic layers under some constraints), but in the general case. As in, you draw in some CAD program an arbitrary (within physical law) device wherein each atom is specified... and then you get it built. Lithography cannot do this. Synthetic chemistry can do this for a subset of chemical compounds, but can't tackle the general case and certainly can't currently make arbitrary nano-devices with atomic-level precision. You're right that bottom-up approaches like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly" title="wikipedia.org">self-assembly</a> [wikipedia.org] also can't currently do this (they are more of a way to assembly precise sub-units into larger assemblies).<br> <br>

This final "true" nanotechnology (Drexler now calls it "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular\_nanotechnology" title="wikipedia.org">molecular nanotechnology</a> [wikipedia.org]" to differentiate it) won't be easy, and may very well require a delicate combination of everything we've learned from of top-down techniques (e.g. lithography) and bottom-up techniques (e.g. synthetic chemistry, self-assembly). Or maybe it require radically new thinking. The point is we don't yet know, so to say that "top down beat bottom up years ago" really misses the point: molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheived.<br> <br>

In the meantime, our current tricks all have their uses (lithography is great for, e.g. making microchips... whereas self-assembly is great for making, e.g. coatings for pharmaceuticals and fuel-cell membranes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The achievements of the lithography industry are absolutely stunning .
And if you want to call them a branch of nanotechnology , that 's fine too .
But they have not achieved the holy grail of nanotechnology , and the tricks of lithography never will .
The holy grail is atomic-level precision ; not just in restricted circumstances ( e.g .
single atomic layers under some constraints ) , but in the general case .
As in , you draw in some CAD program an arbitrary ( within physical law ) device wherein each atom is specified... and then you get it built .
Lithography can not do this .
Synthetic chemistry can do this for a subset of chemical compounds , but ca n't tackle the general case and certainly ca n't currently make arbitrary nano-devices with atomic-level precision .
You 're right that bottom-up approaches like self-assembly [ wikipedia.org ] also ca n't currently do this ( they are more of a way to assembly precise sub-units into larger assemblies ) .
This final " true " nanotechnology ( Drexler now calls it " molecular nanotechnology [ wikipedia.org ] " to differentiate it ) wo n't be easy , and may very well require a delicate combination of everything we 've learned from of top-down techniques ( e.g .
lithography ) and bottom-up techniques ( e.g .
synthetic chemistry , self-assembly ) .
Or maybe it require radically new thinking .
The point is we do n't yet know , so to say that " top down beat bottom up years ago " really misses the point : molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheived .
In the meantime , our current tricks all have their uses ( lithography is great for , e.g .
making microchips... whereas self-assembly is great for making , e.g .
coatings for pharmaceuticals and fuel-cell membranes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The achievements of the lithography industry are absolutely stunning.
And if you want to call them a branch of nanotechnology, that's fine too.
But they have not achieved the holy grail of nanotechnology, and the tricks of lithography never will.
The holy grail is atomic-level precision; not just in restricted circumstances (e.g.
single atomic layers under some constraints), but in the general case.
As in, you draw in some CAD program an arbitrary (within physical law) device wherein each atom is specified... and then you get it built.
Lithography cannot do this.
Synthetic chemistry can do this for a subset of chemical compounds, but can't tackle the general case and certainly can't currently make arbitrary nano-devices with atomic-level precision.
You're right that bottom-up approaches like self-assembly [wikipedia.org] also can't currently do this (they are more of a way to assembly precise sub-units into larger assemblies).
This final "true" nanotechnology (Drexler now calls it "molecular nanotechnology [wikipedia.org]" to differentiate it) won't be easy, and may very well require a delicate combination of everything we've learned from of top-down techniques (e.g.
lithography) and bottom-up techniques (e.g.
synthetic chemistry, self-assembly).
Or maybe it require radically new thinking.
The point is we don't yet know, so to say that "top down beat bottom up years ago" really misses the point: molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheived.
In the meantime, our current tricks all have their uses (lithography is great for, e.g.
making microchips... whereas self-assembly is great for making, e.g.
coatings for pharmaceuticals and fuel-cell membranes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28338047</id>
	<title>how about interviewing some real nanotechnologists</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goals they're putting out for nanotechnology are generally real and reasonable (more efficient energy conversion, more targeted drug delivery, better chemical sensors, integration of biological and electronic systems).  What is unreasonable is that they're essentially getting credit in the media (and in form of investments) for work which they have not done.</p><p>None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab.  None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms.  I'm doing both.  I work  at an Ivy League University in a leading lab for some of the technologies prominently mentioned in that article, but I barely have funding just for this summer.  The guy who invented the DNA origami work they're so excited about was recently fired by his University (did not get tenure).  A little more support, both in the media and by the companies funding the Forsight Institute, would be really, really welcomed by those of us actually doing the work.</p><p>The MIT Media lab is great, but they're not known in the field for being experts on nanotechnology.  Not mentioned is the world's best collection of nanotechnology researchers, which happens to also be at MIT, in the physics and engineering departments. If you're at MIT and you want to have a future in nanotechnology, forget the Media Lab, and find one of the professors working with Gene and Mildred Dresselhaus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goals they 're putting out for nanotechnology are generally real and reasonable ( more efficient energy conversion , more targeted drug delivery , better chemical sensors , integration of biological and electronic systems ) .
What is unreasonable is that they 're essentially getting credit in the media ( and in form of investments ) for work which they have not done.None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab .
None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms .
I 'm doing both .
I work at an Ivy League University in a leading lab for some of the technologies prominently mentioned in that article , but I barely have funding just for this summer .
The guy who invented the DNA origami work they 're so excited about was recently fired by his University ( did not get tenure ) .
A little more support , both in the media and by the companies funding the Forsight Institute , would be really , really welcomed by those of us actually doing the work.The MIT Media lab is great , but they 're not known in the field for being experts on nanotechnology .
Not mentioned is the world 's best collection of nanotechnology researchers , which happens to also be at MIT , in the physics and engineering departments .
If you 're at MIT and you want to have a future in nanotechnology , forget the Media Lab , and find one of the professors working with Gene and Mildred Dresselhaus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goals they're putting out for nanotechnology are generally real and reasonable (more efficient energy conversion, more targeted drug delivery, better chemical sensors, integration of biological and electronic systems).
What is unreasonable is that they're essentially getting credit in the media (and in form of investments) for work which they have not done.None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab.
None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms.
I'm doing both.
I work  at an Ivy League University in a leading lab for some of the technologies prominently mentioned in that article, but I barely have funding just for this summer.
The guy who invented the DNA origami work they're so excited about was recently fired by his University (did not get tenure).
A little more support, both in the media and by the companies funding the Forsight Institute, would be really, really welcomed by those of us actually doing the work.The MIT Media lab is great, but they're not known in the field for being experts on nanotechnology.
Not mentioned is the world's best collection of nanotechnology researchers, which happens to also be at MIT, in the physics and engineering departments.
If you're at MIT and you want to have a future in nanotechnology, forget the Media Lab, and find one of the professors working with Gene and Mildred Dresselhaus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336537</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we already have it</title>
	<author>grep\_rocks</author>
	<datestamp>1245086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we already have nanotechnology - it is called molecular biology</htmltext>
<tokenext>we already have nanotechnology - it is called molecular biology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we already have nanotechnology - it is called molecular biology</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336447</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that sounds a lot like a certain <a href="http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/3.05\_\%22Learning\_Curve\%22\_Episode\_Guide" title="stargate-s...utions.com" rel="nofollow">Stargate SG-1</a> [stargate-s...utions.com] episode...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that sounds a lot like a certain Stargate SG-1 [ stargate-s...utions.com ] episode.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that sounds a lot like a certain Stargate SG-1 [stargate-s...utions.com] episode...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336077</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we already have it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, microtechnology, hence the micro.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Spell check says it isn't a word, but what do spell checkers know?  Bah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , microtechnology , hence the micro .
; ) Spell check says it is n't a word , but what do spell checkers know ?
Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, microtechnology, hence the micro.
;)Spell check says it isn't a word, but what do spell checkers know?
Bah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345421</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DAMN YOU SHEPHERDS FROM SOLARIS. WE ARE NOT LAMBS.</p><p>But seriously, have you played Xenogears? A vast majority of the world population is controlled by the hidden supernation in the sky through nanomachines. The nanomachines prevent the land dwellers from attacking the leaders of Solaris and lock away their full powers.</p><p>Of course you don't exactly realize that through 60\% of the game, but hey. That's what I call good ruling.</p><p>And then disc 2 happens and you attempt to free all of the land dwellers from their nanomachines by blasting a nanomachine bomb into the atmosphere with a mass-driver and...let's just say the rulers of Solaris planned for that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DAMN YOU SHEPHERDS FROM SOLARIS .
WE ARE NOT LAMBS.But seriously , have you played Xenogears ?
A vast majority of the world population is controlled by the hidden supernation in the sky through nanomachines .
The nanomachines prevent the land dwellers from attacking the leaders of Solaris and lock away their full powers.Of course you do n't exactly realize that through 60 \ % of the game , but hey .
That 's what I call good ruling.And then disc 2 happens and you attempt to free all of the land dwellers from their nanomachines by blasting a nanomachine bomb into the atmosphere with a mass-driver and...let 's just say the rulers of Solaris planned for that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DAMN YOU SHEPHERDS FROM SOLARIS.
WE ARE NOT LAMBS.But seriously, have you played Xenogears?
A vast majority of the world population is controlled by the hidden supernation in the sky through nanomachines.
The nanomachines prevent the land dwellers from attacking the leaders of Solaris and lock away their full powers.Of course you don't exactly realize that through 60\% of the game, but hey.
That's what I call good ruling.And then disc 2 happens and you attempt to free all of the land dwellers from their nanomachines by blasting a nanomachine bomb into the atmosphere with a mass-driver and...let's just say the rulers of Solaris planned for that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336369</id>
	<title>Re:I can't wait</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1245085800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Bring it on, Mr. Ellison!</i></p><p>You're asking for Larry's grey goo?<br>Ewww... -1 Inappropriate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring it on , Mr. Ellison ! You 're asking for Larry 's grey goo ? Ewww... -1 Inappropriate</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Bring it on, Mr. Ellison!You're asking for Larry's grey goo?Ewww... -1 Inappropriate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</id>
	<title>Nanoleash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Mites, like viruses, can infect or inoculate people."</i></p><p>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body. I'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mites , like viruses , can infect or inoculate people .
" At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body .
I 'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Mites, like viruses, can infect or inoculate people.
"At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body.
I'm betting there will be a built in kill switch in case you become disruptive to the common good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336213</id>
	<title>How much money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boy I hope this funding is in the 4-digits or less.  Does Sun have better things to spend money on?  I think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy I hope this funding is in the 4-digits or less .
Does Sun have better things to spend money on ?
I think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy I hope this funding is in the 4-digits or less.
Does Sun have better things to spend money on?
I think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336661</id>
	<title>Re:Law of Accelerating Returns...</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1245087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"the exponential trends continue to be exponential"</i> </p><p>They didn't say that the exponent was necessarily &gt; 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the exponential trends continue to be exponential " They did n't say that the exponent was necessarily &gt; 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "the exponential trends continue to be exponential" They didn't say that the exponent was necessarily &gt; 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336043</id>
	<title>Re:5 to 10 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty optimistic. If you RTFA, they're estimating 20-30 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty optimistic .
If you RTFA , they 're estimating 20-30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty optimistic.
If you RTFA, they're estimating 20-30 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28338219</id>
	<title>Drexler helped lead the roadmap project</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about accelerating "real nanotechnology", and lab nanotech is already building the technology base. US National Labs hosted the project. Sorry, no nanobots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about accelerating " real nanotechnology " , and lab nanotech is already building the technology base .
US National Labs hosted the project .
Sorry , no nanobots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about accelerating "real nanotechnology", and lab nanotech is already building the technology base.
US National Labs hosted the project.
Sorry, no nanobots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335953</id>
	<title>Ah..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh... Nanotechnology.<br> <br>The next big thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh... Nanotechnology. The next big thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh... Nanotechnology. The next big thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</id>
	<title>Don't we already have it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't most of the microchips be considered nanotechnology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most of the microchips be considered nanotechnology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most of the microchips be considered nanotechnology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336297</id>
	<title>All this...</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245085500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this and they still can't make a coffee pot that can brew an entire 12 cup pot in under 60 seconds without burning the coffee.</p><p>Seriously can we get some important technology invented to make our lives easier.</p><p>For instance can I get a roomba retrofitted to water my lawn for me? For under $200 bucks?</p><p>How about some color changing siding that doesn't bust every time a golf-ball sized piece of hail hits it for less then cement siding.</p><p>Self cleaning ceiling fan blades would be nice too...</p><p>Self milking cows?</p><p>A dog poop scooper that gets under the poop without ripping up the grass...</p><p>Yeah! super hard mini-rods. That will make my toast toast faster....</p><p>ZZzzz...</p><p>Where is my poorly done art-deco nuclear powered car that conspicuously blows up after being abandoned for over 200 years and subsequently shot. Oddly this car will also smoke and burst into flames before blowing up... What the hell is burning in it? After 200 years there isn't going to be any upolhstry left....</p><p>Where was I? Who the hell are you people and how did you get on my series of tubes!?!?</p><p>Deborah where are my pills?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this and they still ca n't make a coffee pot that can brew an entire 12 cup pot in under 60 seconds without burning the coffee.Seriously can we get some important technology invented to make our lives easier.For instance can I get a roomba retrofitted to water my lawn for me ?
For under $ 200 bucks ? How about some color changing siding that does n't bust every time a golf-ball sized piece of hail hits it for less then cement siding.Self cleaning ceiling fan blades would be nice too...Self milking cows ? A dog poop scooper that gets under the poop without ripping up the grass...Yeah !
super hard mini-rods .
That will make my toast toast faster....ZZzzz...Where is my poorly done art-deco nuclear powered car that conspicuously blows up after being abandoned for over 200 years and subsequently shot .
Oddly this car will also smoke and burst into flames before blowing up... What the hell is burning in it ?
After 200 years there is n't going to be any upolhstry left....Where was I ?
Who the hell are you people and how did you get on my series of tubes ! ? !
? Deborah where are my pills ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this and they still can't make a coffee pot that can brew an entire 12 cup pot in under 60 seconds without burning the coffee.Seriously can we get some important technology invented to make our lives easier.For instance can I get a roomba retrofitted to water my lawn for me?
For under $200 bucks?How about some color changing siding that doesn't bust every time a golf-ball sized piece of hail hits it for less then cement siding.Self cleaning ceiling fan blades would be nice too...Self milking cows?A dog poop scooper that gets under the poop without ripping up the grass...Yeah!
super hard mini-rods.
That will make my toast toast faster....ZZzzz...Where is my poorly done art-deco nuclear powered car that conspicuously blows up after being abandoned for over 200 years and subsequently shot.
Oddly this car will also smoke and burst into flames before blowing up... What the hell is burning in it?
After 200 years there isn't going to be any upolhstry left....Where was I?
Who the hell are you people and how did you get on my series of tubes!?!
?Deborah where are my pills?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336151</id>
	<title>I can't wait</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1245084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for that fantastic grey goo I'm always hearing about!</p><p>Bring it on, Mr. Ellison!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for that fantastic grey goo I 'm always hearing about ! Bring it on , Mr. Ellison !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for that fantastic grey goo I'm always hearing about!Bring it on, Mr. Ellison!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336017</id>
	<title>just like high-T\_C superconductivity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just like high-T\_C superconductivity, nanotech will change everything, any day now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just like high-T \ _C superconductivity , nanotech will change everything , any day now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just like high-T\_C superconductivity, nanotech will change everything, any day now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337265</id>
	<title>Idiotechnocracy</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1245089940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Feynman's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's\_Plenty\_of\_Room\_at\_the\_Bottom" title="wikipedia.org">Plenty of Room at the Bottom</a> [wikipedia.org]" drew specific distinctions between chemistry and nanotechnology.  The embarrassing lack of advancement in nanotechnology has been filled in by redefining it to include chemistry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feynman 's " Plenty of Room at the Bottom [ wikipedia.org ] " drew specific distinctions between chemistry and nanotechnology .
The embarrassing lack of advancement in nanotechnology has been filled in by redefining it to include chemistry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feynman's "Plenty of Room at the Bottom [wikipedia.org]" drew specific distinctions between chemistry and nanotechnology.
The embarrassing lack of advancement in nanotechnology has been filled in by redefining it to include chemistry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336263</id>
	<title>That's Stargate, not Star Trek</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245085380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek has the "cool" sci-fi thing, whereas a lot of people rip Star Gate, but I think the nano-tech future given by the likes of the Replicators are where this nano stuff is headed.</p><p>The single greatest shortcoming in human science is its failure to understand outcomes of complex, dynamic systems, and here we are going to make exactly that.</p><p>Doesn't get any dumber than that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek has the " cool " sci-fi thing , whereas a lot of people rip Star Gate , but I think the nano-tech future given by the likes of the Replicators are where this nano stuff is headed.The single greatest shortcoming in human science is its failure to understand outcomes of complex , dynamic systems , and here we are going to make exactly that.Does n't get any dumber than that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek has the "cool" sci-fi thing, whereas a lot of people rip Star Gate, but I think the nano-tech future given by the likes of the Replicators are where this nano stuff is headed.The single greatest shortcoming in human science is its failure to understand outcomes of complex, dynamic systems, and here we are going to make exactly that.Doesn't get any dumber than that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28448899</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple machines, in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age the "feed" is a linear stream of individual atoms which run into a simple machine(read a series of wheels, ramps and levers) that assembles products atom by atom inside a vacuum. Obviously this needs to be massively parralel, but there's no reason we can't do this today. Ato</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple machines , in Neal Stephenson 's Diamond Age the " feed " is a linear stream of individual atoms which run into a simple machine ( read a series of wheels , ramps and levers ) that assembles products atom by atom inside a vacuum .
Obviously this needs to be massively parralel , but there 's no reason we ca n't do this today .
Ato</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple machines, in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age the "feed" is a linear stream of individual atoms which run into a simple machine(read a series of wheels, ramps and levers) that assembles products atom by atom inside a vacuum.
Obviously this needs to be massively parralel, but there's no reason we can't do this today.
Ato</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28344897</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>Suicyco</author>
	<datestamp>1245094020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh, yeah, top down is the king. Err, wait, aren't grey whales some of the largest nanomachines on the planet? From a single fertilized egg? Converting other creatures into itself?</p><p>Nah, must be impossible. There's no way ribosomes are nearly as complex as a transistor, or nearly as useful. Its all about chopping large hunks of matter into tiny bits.</p><p>"Real" nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at that scale. How is the matter in a CPU manipulated to build the CPU? It isn't. Its chopped away from larger chunks. No matter how small it gets, this process cannot produce complex structures or machines as well as nanotechnology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , yeah , top down is the king .
Err , wait , are n't grey whales some of the largest nanomachines on the planet ?
From a single fertilized egg ?
Converting other creatures into itself ? Nah , must be impossible .
There 's no way ribosomes are nearly as complex as a transistor , or nearly as useful .
Its all about chopping large hunks of matter into tiny bits .
" Real " nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at that scale .
How is the matter in a CPU manipulated to build the CPU ?
It is n't .
Its chopped away from larger chunks .
No matter how small it gets , this process can not produce complex structures or machines as well as nanotechnology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, yeah, top down is the king.
Err, wait, aren't grey whales some of the largest nanomachines on the planet?
From a single fertilized egg?
Converting other creatures into itself?Nah, must be impossible.
There's no way ribosomes are nearly as complex as a transistor, or nearly as useful.
Its all about chopping large hunks of matter into tiny bits.
"Real" nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at that scale.
How is the matter in a CPU manipulated to build the CPU?
It isn't.
Its chopped away from larger chunks.
No matter how small it gets, this process cannot produce complex structures or machines as well as nanotechnology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999</id>
	<title>"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>Bender\_</author>
	<datestamp>1245084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://cycho.org/research/blog/images/NEWS1502\_UTH\_3.gif" title="cycho.org">This</a> [cycho.org] is a cross section of the pmos transistors in one of Intels 45nm high-k metal gate CPUs. As you can see there are many layers with a horizontal and lateral extend far below 10 nm. In fact the thinnest layers are in the order of 1-2nm - The gate stack itself consists of a multilayer stack of SiO2/HfO2/TiN, where each of the layers is only 1-3 nm thick.</p><p>How is this not nanotechnology?</p><p>Most of the known bottom up approaches that are hyped and studied at universities, such as nanoparticles and nanowires,  lead to significantly larger structures. </p><p>Top down beat bottom up years ago. Sorry guys, it's a nice phd topic but the industry is already there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ cycho.org ] is a cross section of the pmos transistors in one of Intels 45nm high-k metal gate CPUs .
As you can see there are many layers with a horizontal and lateral extend far below 10 nm .
In fact the thinnest layers are in the order of 1-2nm - The gate stack itself consists of a multilayer stack of SiO2/HfO2/TiN , where each of the layers is only 1-3 nm thick.How is this not nanotechnology ? Most of the known bottom up approaches that are hyped and studied at universities , such as nanoparticles and nanowires , lead to significantly larger structures .
Top down beat bottom up years ago .
Sorry guys , it 's a nice phd topic but the industry is already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [cycho.org] is a cross section of the pmos transistors in one of Intels 45nm high-k metal gate CPUs.
As you can see there are many layers with a horizontal and lateral extend far below 10 nm.
In fact the thinnest layers are in the order of 1-2nm - The gate stack itself consists of a multilayer stack of SiO2/HfO2/TiN, where each of the layers is only 1-3 nm thick.How is this not nanotechnology?Most of the known bottom up approaches that are hyped and studied at universities, such as nanoparticles and nanowires,  lead to significantly larger structures.
Top down beat bottom up years ago.
Sorry guys, it's a nice phd topic but the industry is already there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337863</id>
	<title>Molecular Nanotechnology</title>
	<author>KonoWatakushi</author>
	<datestamp>1245092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever things people may like to call "nanotechnology," there is really only one important distinction.  Can we assemble atoms in any desired configuration?  That is what is commonly termed molecular nanotechnology, and it is what most people originally meant.</p><p>Once this and fusion are out of the way, life will start to get very interesting; the foundation of our economic systems will become irrelevant as scarcity will cease to be a useful concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever things people may like to call " nanotechnology , " there is really only one important distinction .
Can we assemble atoms in any desired configuration ?
That is what is commonly termed molecular nanotechnology , and it is what most people originally meant.Once this and fusion are out of the way , life will start to get very interesting ; the foundation of our economic systems will become irrelevant as scarcity will cease to be a useful concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever things people may like to call "nanotechnology," there is really only one important distinction.
Can we assemble atoms in any desired configuration?
That is what is commonly termed molecular nanotechnology, and it is what most people originally meant.Once this and fusion are out of the way, life will start to get very interesting; the foundation of our economic systems will become irrelevant as scarcity will cease to be a useful concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28349351</id>
	<title>Re:Nanoleash</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1245174360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body.</p></div><p>But will these future nanomite overloads run Linux?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body.But will these future nanomite overloads run Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At birth you will be infected with government approved nanomites to help regulate your body.But will these future nanomite overloads run Linux?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339631</id>
	<title>Re:5 to 10 years.  (or 20...)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://crnano.org/timeline.htm" title="crnano.org" rel="nofollow">http://crnano.org/timeline.htm</a> [crnano.org]</p><p>"Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place. Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies. Assuming all this theory works--and no one has established a problem with it yet--exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable. It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025. When it arrives, it will come quickly. MM can be built into a self-contained, personal factory (PN) that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale. The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year. The potential benefits of such a technology are immense. Unfortunately, the risks are also immense."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //crnano.org/timeline.htm [ crnano.org ] " Molecular manufacturing ( MM ) means the ability to build devices , machines , and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place .
Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies .
Assuming all this theory works--and no one has established a problem with it yet--exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable .
It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015 , more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020 , and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025 .
When it arrives , it will come quickly .
MM can be built into a self-contained , personal factory ( PN ) that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale .
The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year .
The potential benefits of such a technology are immense .
Unfortunately , the risks are also immense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://crnano.org/timeline.htm [crnano.org]"Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place.
Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies.
Assuming all this theory works--and no one has established a problem with it yet--exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable.
It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025.
When it arrives, it will come quickly.
MM can be built into a self-contained, personal factory (PN) that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale.
The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year.
The potential benefits of such a technology are immense.
Unfortunately, the risks are also immense.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28367143</id>
	<title>Re:"Real" nanotechnology is already there</title>
	<author>renoX</author>
	<datestamp>1245237360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheived</p><p>I disagree with this point: the ("hand"-made) IBM logo with atoms see <a href="http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95spr/atom.html" title="cornell.edu">http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95spr/atom.html</a> [cornell.edu] is one of the first 'nanotechnology' object.</p><p>Of course it's a very crude one (only a few dozens of atoms whereas ordinary object are composed of a humongous number of atoms, remember Avogadro's constant: 6*10^23 atoms for *twelve grams* of C12) but it was still done with atomic-level precision, it's also a reminder of the *huge* amount of work that is still needed to build a molecular assembler..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheivedI disagree with this point : the ( " hand " -made ) IBM logo with atoms see http : //www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95spr/atom.html [ cornell.edu ] is one of the first 'nanotechnology ' object.Of course it 's a very crude one ( only a few dozens of atoms whereas ordinary object are composed of a humongous number of atoms , remember Avogadro 's constant : 6 * 10 ^ 23 atoms for * twelve grams * of C12 ) but it was still done with atomic-level precision , it 's also a reminder of the * huge * amount of work that is still needed to build a molecular assembler. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;molecular nanotechnology has not yet been acheivedI disagree with this point: the ("hand"-made) IBM logo with atoms see http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95spr/atom.html [cornell.edu] is one of the first 'nanotechnology' object.Of course it's a very crude one (only a few dozens of atoms whereas ordinary object are composed of a humongous number of atoms, remember Avogadro's constant: 6*10^23 atoms for *twelve grams* of C12) but it was still done with atomic-level precision, it's also a reminder of the *huge* amount of work that is still needed to build a molecular assembler..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336015</id>
	<title>nanotechnology has the unique attribute</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that, unlike all other fields of technological innovation, when one speaks of vaporware, one might actually be talking about some sort of useful hardware that literally is a vapor</p><p>so nanotechnology has at least that going for it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that , unlike all other fields of technological innovation , when one speaks of vaporware , one might actually be talking about some sort of useful hardware that literally is a vaporso nanotechnology has at least that going for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that, unlike all other fields of technological innovation, when one speaks of vaporware, one might actually be talking about some sort of useful hardware that literally is a vaporso nanotechnology has at least that going for it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336285</id>
	<title>Dunno abut microchips but this does</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely the technology inside of <a href="http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop\_ipod/family/ipod\_nano?afid=p202\%7CGOUSE100392049&amp;cid=OAS-US-KWG-iPodNano-US" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">this baby</a> [apple.com] qualifies as Nano(TM) technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the technology inside of this baby [ apple.com ] qualifies as Nano ( TM ) technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the technology inside of this baby [apple.com] qualifies as Nano(TM) technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28340813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28344897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28367143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28448899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28349351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1341210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28349351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28338047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28340813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28345527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28337573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28448899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28367143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28339571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28344897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28336531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1341210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1341210.28335953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
