<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_019229</id>
	<title>Ultra-Thin Laptops To Be Next Intel-AMD Battleground</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245672600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/services/pop\_print.htm?id=280016&amp;tb=bh">$500 ultra-thin laptops</a>, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD. <i>"AMD partnered with Hewlett-Packard Co. in January to launch the Pavilion dv2. Intel launched its rival CULV (Consumer Ultra Low Voltage) chip this month and Acer Inc. and Asustek Computer Inc were among those that demonstrated laptops based on the new technology at the Computex trade show in Taipei. ... With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops &mdash; and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at. ... Acer, the first company to introduce a cheap Intel-powered CULV laptop, expects revenue from that segment to account for 15 percent of its total sales by the end of 2009. Asustek, which pioneered the netbook in 2007, plans to launch five consumer-priced ultra-thins this year."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $ 500 ultra-thin laptops , capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content , could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD .
" AMD partnered with Hewlett-Packard Co. in January to launch the Pavilion dv2 .
Intel launched its rival CULV ( Consumer Ultra Low Voltage ) chip this month and Acer Inc. and Asustek Computer Inc were among those that demonstrated laptops based on the new technology at the Computex trade show in Taipei .
... With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology , consumers want smaller laptops    and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web , which the no-frills netbooks now excel at .
... Acer , the first company to introduce a cheap Intel-powered CULV laptop , expects revenue from that segment to account for 15 percent of its total sales by the end of 2009 .
Asustek , which pioneered the netbook in 2007 , plans to launch five consumer-priced ultra-thins this year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $500 ultra-thin laptops, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD.
"AMD partnered with Hewlett-Packard Co. in January to launch the Pavilion dv2.
Intel launched its rival CULV (Consumer Ultra Low Voltage) chip this month and Acer Inc. and Asustek Computer Inc were among those that demonstrated laptops based on the new technology at the Computex trade show in Taipei.
... With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops — and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at.
... Acer, the first company to introduce a cheap Intel-powered CULV laptop, expects revenue from that segment to account for 15 percent of its total sales by the end of 2009.
Asustek, which pioneered the netbook in 2007, plans to launch five consumer-priced ultra-thins this year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420499</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1245679680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like apple's MacBook Pro line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like apple 's MacBook Pro line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like apple's MacBook Pro line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420311</id>
	<title>How about a cell-phone sized computer?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245678720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say, with a project-able display and project-to-any-surface keyboard?</p><p>Bonus if it weighed no more than today's smart phones and lasted all day between charges.</p><p>I know, I know, "dream on," at least for this decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say , with a project-able display and project-to-any-surface keyboard ? Bonus if it weighed no more than today 's smart phones and lasted all day between charges.I know , I know , " dream on , " at least for this decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say, with a project-able display and project-to-any-surface keyboard?Bonus if it weighed no more than today's smart phones and lasted all day between charges.I know, I know, "dream on," at least for this decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421231</id>
	<title>Who will care?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245682500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you can get a smartbook that can do all this, runs 10 hours, and costs $100-$200?<br>(Remember the article here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., about these [ARM + nVidia Tegra acceleration + Linux] devices coming out in autumn?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you can get a smartbook that can do all this , runs 10 hours , and costs $ 100- $ 200 ?
( Remember the article here on /. , about these [ ARM + nVidia Tegra acceleration + Linux ] devices coming out in autumn ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you can get a smartbook that can do all this, runs 10 hours, and costs $100-$200?
(Remember the article here on /., about these [ARM + nVidia Tegra acceleration + Linux] devices coming out in autumn?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423717</id>
	<title>Re:"capable of multitasking" Really?</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1245690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac OS 9 is certainly capable of multitasking (either cooperative or preemptive, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_multitasking" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]) and can edit multimedia content just fine (what platform did you think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_multitasking" title="wikipedia.org">iMovie</a> [wikipedia.org] was designed for?).  Of course, it only ran on PowerPC processors, so that might be an issue....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS 9 is certainly capable of multitasking ( either cooperative or preemptive , according to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ) and can edit multimedia content just fine ( what platform did you think iMovie [ wikipedia.org ] was designed for ? ) .
Of course , it only ran on PowerPC processors , so that might be an issue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS 9 is certainly capable of multitasking (either cooperative or preemptive, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) and can edit multimedia content just fine (what platform did you think iMovie [wikipedia.org] was designed for?).
Of course, it only ran on PowerPC processors, so that might be an issue....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721</id>
	<title>ARM and floating-point</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1245684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.</p></div><p>Perhaps someone can inform me on this topic, but I am under the impression that ARM is not going to offer this performance in situations where lots of floating-point ops are required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.Perhaps someone can inform me on this topic , but I am under the impression that ARM is not going to offer this performance in situations where lots of floating-point ops are required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.Perhaps someone can inform me on this topic, but I am under the impression that ARM is not going to offer this performance in situations where lots of floating-point ops are required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426185</id>
	<title>Re:ARM and floating-point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This depends on which ARM CPU you're talking about. Most pocket PCs and smartphones usually come with ARMs without any hardware floating-point support. But higher-end models do have FP-capable CPUs, and their FP performance can be quite good. Again, this very much depends on the CPU you have, NOT on the architecture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This depends on which ARM CPU you 're talking about .
Most pocket PCs and smartphones usually come with ARMs without any hardware floating-point support .
But higher-end models do have FP-capable CPUs , and their FP performance can be quite good .
Again , this very much depends on the CPU you have , NOT on the architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This depends on which ARM CPU you're talking about.
Most pocket PCs and smartphones usually come with ARMs without any hardware floating-point support.
But higher-end models do have FP-capable CPUs, and their FP performance can be quite good.
Again, this very much depends on the CPU you have, NOT on the architecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420697</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1245680520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it depends on how much you rose color the glasses. These days I might just happen to have a torrent running in the background downlading 2MB/sec using SSL encrypted connections with lots of random writes, and the machine is still very usable. Try that on a system with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM and you might as well go read a book, because it'll be completely useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it depends on how much you rose color the glasses .
These days I might just happen to have a torrent running in the background downlading 2MB/sec using SSL encrypted connections with lots of random writes , and the machine is still very usable .
Try that on a system with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM and you might as well go read a book , because it 'll be completely useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it depends on how much you rose color the glasses.
These days I might just happen to have a torrent running in the background downlading 2MB/sec using SSL encrypted connections with lots of random writes, and the machine is still very usable.
Try that on a system with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM and you might as well go read a book, because it'll be completely useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424385</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245693060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you don't imagine thickness would in any way be related to size or weight?  It's not like they're the same volume as any other laptop, just thinner and thus wider.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Besides, "ultra-thin" is just a marketing name for the sub-market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you do n't imagine thickness would in any way be related to size or weight ?
It 's not like they 're the same volume as any other laptop , just thinner and thus wider .
: PBesides , " ultra-thin " is just a marketing name for the sub-market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you don't imagine thickness would in any way be related to size or weight?
It's not like they're the same volume as any other laptop, just thinner and thus wider.
:PBesides, "ultra-thin" is just a marketing name for the sub-market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422095</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was very disappointed in the performance of an atom based netbook.</p><p>I wasn't demanding a whole lot from it, but all it had to beat was a 3 year old 1.6Ghz Pentium M Inspiron.  And the atom based netbook was horrible.  I have little idea who can use those things and not be frustrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was very disappointed in the performance of an atom based netbook.I was n't demanding a whole lot from it , but all it had to beat was a 3 year old 1.6Ghz Pentium M Inspiron .
And the atom based netbook was horrible .
I have little idea who can use those things and not be frustrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was very disappointed in the performance of an atom based netbook.I wasn't demanding a whole lot from it, but all it had to beat was a 3 year old 1.6Ghz Pentium M Inspiron.
And the atom based netbook was horrible.
I have little idea who can use those things and not be frustrated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420473</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1245679500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, so this is not for you.  However, for a lot of business users, ability to slip in a briefcase designed for A4 paper is a big feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , so this is not for you .
However , for a lot of business users , ability to slip in a briefcase designed for A4 paper is a big feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, so this is not for you.
However, for a lot of business users, ability to slip in a briefcase designed for A4 paper is a big feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422871</id>
	<title>Re:How about a cell-phone sized computer?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1245687840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure about the project-able display (though wireless HDMI is available, you'd have issues with lugging the TV screen around with you), but a <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/keyboards-mice/8193/" title="thinkgeek.com">projectable keyboard</a> [thinkgeek.com] is readily available. And it connects via bluetooth, so you can keep your cellphone-sized PC in your pocket.</p><p>I'd like to see this become a reality (displays projected onto spectacles for instance), but unfortunately software requires more processing power than you can shake a big stick at, so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. It'd be a killer app if you could make it though, and would possibly destroy managed code and bloated OSs in no time if you did.</p><p>oh... hang on... you can have <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/accessories/98d3/?cpg=ab" title="thinkgeek.com">spectacles-projected displays</a> [thinkgeek.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about the project-able display ( though wireless HDMI is available , you 'd have issues with lugging the TV screen around with you ) , but a projectable keyboard [ thinkgeek.com ] is readily available .
And it connects via bluetooth , so you can keep your cellphone-sized PC in your pocket.I 'd like to see this become a reality ( displays projected onto spectacles for instance ) , but unfortunately software requires more processing power than you can shake a big stick at , so I do n't expect it to happen anytime soon .
It 'd be a killer app if you could make it though , and would possibly destroy managed code and bloated OSs in no time if you did.oh... hang on... you can have spectacles-projected displays [ thinkgeek.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about the project-able display (though wireless HDMI is available, you'd have issues with lugging the TV screen around with you), but a projectable keyboard [thinkgeek.com] is readily available.
And it connects via bluetooth, so you can keep your cellphone-sized PC in your pocket.I'd like to see this become a reality (displays projected onto spectacles for instance), but unfortunately software requires more processing power than you can shake a big stick at, so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
It'd be a killer app if you could make it though, and would possibly destroy managed code and bloated OSs in no time if you did.oh... hang on... you can have spectacles-projected displays [thinkgeek.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432717</id>
	<title>Re:ARM and floating-point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on the ARM, but all the processors that could be seriously considered for new laptop/netbook/t&amp;l applications have FPUs of some sort.</p><p>Not sure exactly what sort of use you're considering; video decoding and 3d rendering are the only real FP-intensive operations in "normal" usage, and both tend to be handled more on the GPU side anyway (3d has been offloaded for years; video's more limited, but is trending up of late). Maybe you're talking scientific computing; some of them may not be so hot (might lack double- and quad-precision?) but the Cortex-A series all have NEON SIMD units, which have single- and double-precision, and should give ample performance for video work.</p><p>For the more performance-oriented ARM machines, you're looking at <a href="http://www.arm.com/rximages/18622.gif" title="arm.com" rel="nofollow">this sort of thing</a> [arm.com]; I don't see a performance issue, and even if there <em>was</em>, the quad-cores should be running around 1-2W at 1GHz+ -- that leaves plenty of room for a graphics or video coprocessor and still come under the power envelope of a comparable x86 CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the ARM , but all the processors that could be seriously considered for new laptop/netbook/t&amp;l applications have FPUs of some sort.Not sure exactly what sort of use you 're considering ; video decoding and 3d rendering are the only real FP-intensive operations in " normal " usage , and both tend to be handled more on the GPU side anyway ( 3d has been offloaded for years ; video 's more limited , but is trending up of late ) .
Maybe you 're talking scientific computing ; some of them may not be so hot ( might lack double- and quad-precision ?
) but the Cortex-A series all have NEON SIMD units , which have single- and double-precision , and should give ample performance for video work.For the more performance-oriented ARM machines , you 're looking at this sort of thing [ arm.com ] ; I do n't see a performance issue , and even if there was , the quad-cores should be running around 1-2W at 1GHz + -- that leaves plenty of room for a graphics or video coprocessor and still come under the power envelope of a comparable x86 CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the ARM, but all the processors that could be seriously considered for new laptop/netbook/t&amp;l applications have FPUs of some sort.Not sure exactly what sort of use you're considering; video decoding and 3d rendering are the only real FP-intensive operations in "normal" usage, and both tend to be handled more on the GPU side anyway (3d has been offloaded for years; video's more limited, but is trending up of late).
Maybe you're talking scientific computing; some of them may not be so hot (might lack double- and quad-precision?
) but the Cortex-A series all have NEON SIMD units, which have single- and double-precision, and should give ample performance for video work.For the more performance-oriented ARM machines, you're looking at this sort of thing [arm.com]; I don't see a performance issue, and even if there was, the quad-cores should be running around 1-2W at 1GHz+ -- that leaves plenty of room for a graphics or video coprocessor and still come under the power envelope of a comparable x86 CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28430717</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1245671820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces.</p></div></blockquote><p>Considering we can't even build fusion generators that produce power <em>at all</em>, it's just as plausible to wish for a laptop that runs on unicorn farts. Maybe a small nuclear (fission) battery would be a more realistic goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces.Considering we ca n't even build fusion generators that produce power at all , it 's just as plausible to wish for a laptop that runs on unicorn farts .
Maybe a small nuclear ( fission ) battery would be a more realistic goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces.Considering we can't even build fusion generators that produce power at all, it's just as plausible to wish for a laptop that runs on unicorn farts.
Maybe a small nuclear (fission) battery would be a more realistic goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420599</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've just pulled the NiMH battery pack out of an HP 6735 laptop; A long and thin job which slips into the back of the laptop, under the monitor hinges. It's around 12" long, 2" circumference (guestimate) and weighs around 350g.<br> <br>If I were to put the entire base of the laptop full of those batteries, they alone would weigh 2.8kg. The laptop itself weighs, from the tried and tested "hold it up and think of a bag of sugar" method, 2kg without the battery.<br> <br>I think your idea needs refining a little.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just pulled the NiMH battery pack out of an HP 6735 laptop ; A long and thin job which slips into the back of the laptop , under the monitor hinges .
It 's around 12 " long , 2 " circumference ( guestimate ) and weighs around 350g .
If I were to put the entire base of the laptop full of those batteries , they alone would weigh 2.8kg .
The laptop itself weighs , from the tried and tested " hold it up and think of a bag of sugar " method , 2kg without the battery .
I think your idea needs refining a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just pulled the NiMH battery pack out of an HP 6735 laptop; A long and thin job which slips into the back of the laptop, under the monitor hinges.
It's around 12" long, 2" circumference (guestimate) and weighs around 350g.
If I were to put the entire base of the laptop full of those batteries, they alone would weigh 2.8kg.
The laptop itself weighs, from the tried and tested "hold it up and think of a bag of sugar" method, 2kg without the battery.
I think your idea needs refining a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421575</id>
	<title>Re:I do not want a keyboard...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245683700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>...that you can <i>fold up</i>!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing....that you can fold up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing....that you can fold up!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420991</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of all things about notebook (weight, performance, size) thickness is last I care about.</p></div><p>Error id10t: thickness is one dimension to size!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all things about notebook ( weight , performance , size ) thickness is last I care about.Error id10t : thickness is one dimension to size !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all things about notebook (weight, performance, size) thickness is last I care about.Error id10t: thickness is one dimension to size!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420637</id>
	<title>Re:fix landscape portrait sync problems</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245680220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making text files simultaneuously "just work" for both landscape and portrait modes is an insurmountable task; mostly because there will always be something you can tweak about the final product, ultimately defeating the whole point of such software.</p><p>Take a simple flyer for example, the amount of vertical space allows for lots of neat, short snippets.  A horizontal flyer ends up sub-par, because it looks both less businesslike and it can contain fewer sections of text.  Short and sweet is the way to go for business products, and making it display on anything that is different from its form factor diminishes that effect.</p><p>Yes, I get irritated with endless scrolling, but there's nothing stopping me from going into two-page mode (which works out well for me, having a widescreen monitor and all) or from fitting the entire page to the screen.  There's always options!</p><p>Hardware and software people get together when there's money involved.  Otherwise, it's like trying to herd cows and chickens at the same time; everyone will want to go their own way (why not biometrics?  why not biometrics support in HTML?  why not tweak that biometrics hardware to be more accurate?  you get the idea).</p><p>If you have 'awful problems' of landscape screens and portrait pages, try doing something about it.  Change your monitor's orientation (if possible; i do so occasionally even on my laptop) or change the way the program displays those pages.  If you can't read it in dual-page mode, try finding anti-aliasing viewing/editing software, so you can see the finer details.  There's -always- something you can do; making it someone else's problem only works so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making text files simultaneuously " just work " for both landscape and portrait modes is an insurmountable task ; mostly because there will always be something you can tweak about the final product , ultimately defeating the whole point of such software.Take a simple flyer for example , the amount of vertical space allows for lots of neat , short snippets .
A horizontal flyer ends up sub-par , because it looks both less businesslike and it can contain fewer sections of text .
Short and sweet is the way to go for business products , and making it display on anything that is different from its form factor diminishes that effect.Yes , I get irritated with endless scrolling , but there 's nothing stopping me from going into two-page mode ( which works out well for me , having a widescreen monitor and all ) or from fitting the entire page to the screen .
There 's always options ! Hardware and software people get together when there 's money involved .
Otherwise , it 's like trying to herd cows and chickens at the same time ; everyone will want to go their own way ( why not biometrics ?
why not biometrics support in HTML ?
why not tweak that biometrics hardware to be more accurate ?
you get the idea ) .If you have 'awful problems ' of landscape screens and portrait pages , try doing something about it .
Change your monitor 's orientation ( if possible ; i do so occasionally even on my laptop ) or change the way the program displays those pages .
If you ca n't read it in dual-page mode , try finding anti-aliasing viewing/editing software , so you can see the finer details .
There 's -always- something you can do ; making it someone else 's problem only works so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making text files simultaneuously "just work" for both landscape and portrait modes is an insurmountable task; mostly because there will always be something you can tweak about the final product, ultimately defeating the whole point of such software.Take a simple flyer for example, the amount of vertical space allows for lots of neat, short snippets.
A horizontal flyer ends up sub-par, because it looks both less businesslike and it can contain fewer sections of text.
Short and sweet is the way to go for business products, and making it display on anything that is different from its form factor diminishes that effect.Yes, I get irritated with endless scrolling, but there's nothing stopping me from going into two-page mode (which works out well for me, having a widescreen monitor and all) or from fitting the entire page to the screen.
There's always options!Hardware and software people get together when there's money involved.
Otherwise, it's like trying to herd cows and chickens at the same time; everyone will want to go their own way (why not biometrics?
why not biometrics support in HTML?
why not tweak that biometrics hardware to be more accurate?
you get the idea).If you have 'awful problems' of landscape screens and portrait pages, try doing something about it.
Change your monitor's orientation (if possible; i do so occasionally even on my laptop) or change the way the program displays those pages.
If you can't read it in dual-page mode, try finding anti-aliasing viewing/editing software, so you can see the finer details.
There's -always- something you can do; making it someone else's problem only works so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420309</id>
	<title>Michele Obama the fashion icon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.koko.org/images/journal/pj\_2007-08-07.jpg" title="koko.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.koko.org/images/journal/pj\_2007-08-07.jpg</a> [koko.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.koko.org/images/journal/pj \ _2007-08-07.jpg [ koko.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.koko.org/images/journal/pj\_2007-08-07.jpg [koko.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420725</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>ElmoGonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245680640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter how fast the processor runs if the software is pissing cycles away with frivolities.  And it doesn't matter how much memory the machine has if the OS is thrashing about trying to find space for another application kept open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter how fast the processor runs if the software is pissing cycles away with frivolities .
And it does n't matter how much memory the machine has if the OS is thrashing about trying to find space for another application kept open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter how fast the processor runs if the software is pissing cycles away with frivolities.
And it doesn't matter how much memory the machine has if the OS is thrashing about trying to find space for another application kept open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420249</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1245678360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one. I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.</p></div><p>Depending on what you name "normal use", I think that Eee 1000HE may be enough for you. I have used my for a complete day without needing to plug it to the mains.</p><p>I have been using my Eee for a lot more than web-surfing. I can watch video, play games (http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=57479) and even composing/playing music (tuxguitar).</p><p>The *only* thing I may recommend is upgrading to 2GB RAM (from 1 GB RAM available out of the box), but so far, I haven't done this and is not a real problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can make a thin laptop , just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one .
I do n't care how thin it is , but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.Depending on what you name " normal use " , I think that Eee 1000HE may be enough for you .
I have used my for a complete day without needing to plug it to the mains.I have been using my Eee for a lot more than web-surfing .
I can watch video , play games ( http : //forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php ? id = 57479 ) and even composing/playing music ( tuxguitar ) .The * only * thing I may recommend is upgrading to 2GB RAM ( from 1 GB RAM available out of the box ) , but so far , I have n't done this and is not a real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one.
I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.Depending on what you name "normal use", I think that Eee 1000HE may be enough for you.
I have used my for a complete day without needing to plug it to the mains.I have been using my Eee for a lot more than web-surfing.
I can watch video, play games (http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=57479) and even composing/playing music (tuxguitar).The *only* thing I may recommend is upgrading to 2GB RAM (from 1 GB RAM available out of the box), but so far, I haven't done this and is not a real problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426503</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Klintus Fang</author>
	<datestamp>1245700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The user's perception of the performance differences between older CPUs running Win95 and newer CPUs running modern OS's has nothing to do with the processors that AMD and Intel are selling.  It is the software.  it is partly the operating system.  it's partly the fact that people run a lot more junk in the background then they used to.</p><p>it is also sometimes the OEM's fault unfortunately.</p><p>amusing antectode:  a friend of mine was recently having serious performance problems with his new laptop.  I spent half a day trying to figure out why and discovered that the OEM had installed a "power saving" application on the machine that was performing registry reads 20-100 times per second.  The only thing the application had in the registry was its configuration settings.  Needless to say, the OEM, who shall go unnamed clearly has an utterly incompetent software engineering team.  The application was suppossed to detect when to throttle down the CPU frequency and thereby save battery life, but the application was drawing more power all by itself then anything else in the system and was causing performance on this otherwise excellent piece of hardware be horrible.</p><p>In that case, I uninstalled all OEM supplied software from the system and it became quite snappy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The user 's perception of the performance differences between older CPUs running Win95 and newer CPUs running modern OS 's has nothing to do with the processors that AMD and Intel are selling .
It is the software .
it is partly the operating system .
it 's partly the fact that people run a lot more junk in the background then they used to.it is also sometimes the OEM 's fault unfortunately.amusing antectode : a friend of mine was recently having serious performance problems with his new laptop .
I spent half a day trying to figure out why and discovered that the OEM had installed a " power saving " application on the machine that was performing registry reads 20-100 times per second .
The only thing the application had in the registry was its configuration settings .
Needless to say , the OEM , who shall go unnamed clearly has an utterly incompetent software engineering team .
The application was suppossed to detect when to throttle down the CPU frequency and thereby save battery life , but the application was drawing more power all by itself then anything else in the system and was causing performance on this otherwise excellent piece of hardware be horrible.In that case , I uninstalled all OEM supplied software from the system and it became quite snappy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The user's perception of the performance differences between older CPUs running Win95 and newer CPUs running modern OS's has nothing to do with the processors that AMD and Intel are selling.
It is the software.
it is partly the operating system.
it's partly the fact that people run a lot more junk in the background then they used to.it is also sometimes the OEM's fault unfortunately.amusing antectode:  a friend of mine was recently having serious performance problems with his new laptop.
I spent half a day trying to figure out why and discovered that the OEM had installed a "power saving" application on the machine that was performing registry reads 20-100 times per second.
The only thing the application had in the registry was its configuration settings.
Needless to say, the OEM, who shall go unnamed clearly has an utterly incompetent software engineering team.
The application was suppossed to detect when to throttle down the CPU frequency and thereby save battery life, but the application was drawing more power all by itself then anything else in the system and was causing performance on this otherwise excellent piece of hardware be horrible.In that case, I uninstalled all OEM supplied software from the system and it became quite snappy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421803</id>
	<title>Re:Ports</title>
	<author>mrchaotica</author>
	<datestamp>1245684420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video out (VGA or otherwise) is unnecessary in this class of machine -- but even if you did want it, you could use Mini DisplayPort. Ethernet is unnecessary. USB <em>is</em> necessary, but is also thin enough to fit -- and if it isn't, you could use Mini- or Micro-USB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video out ( VGA or otherwise ) is unnecessary in this class of machine -- but even if you did want it , you could use Mini DisplayPort .
Ethernet is unnecessary .
USB is necessary , but is also thin enough to fit -- and if it is n't , you could use Mini- or Micro-USB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video out (VGA or otherwise) is unnecessary in this class of machine -- but even if you did want it, you could use Mini DisplayPort.
Ethernet is unnecessary.
USB is necessary, but is also thin enough to fit -- and if it isn't, you could use Mini- or Micro-USB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426421</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1245700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want that "Wow" feeling from a machine with those specs you really need to run <a href="http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/" title="damnsmalllinux.org">DSL</a> [damnsmalllinux.org], <a href="http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/dsl-n/" title="damnsmalllinux.org">DSL-N</a> [damnsmalllinux.org] or <a href="http://www.puppylinux.com/" title="puppylinux.com">Puppy</a> [puppylinux.com], in order from fastest to slowest, although Puppy is still awfully fast.</p><p>IMHO both the mainstream Windows and Linux have simply gotten too bloated for the low spec mobile devices, hence we have things like Moblin. But I don't see how even Moblin can touch something like DSL-N for "wow" speed factor when you can load the entire OS into RAM with the TORAM flag and only be using 100Mb of RAM. So if you are wanting the "wow" speed over the pretty I'd try those three and see which you like best.</p><p>

 I've been giving DSL-N to customers with battery issues and since it is so light on resources you can actually squeeze some more life out of your battery by going with an "ultra low resource" OS like DSL-N. And who wouldn't rather how more battery life than bling bling effects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want that " Wow " feeling from a machine with those specs you really need to run DSL [ damnsmalllinux.org ] , DSL-N [ damnsmalllinux.org ] or Puppy [ puppylinux.com ] , in order from fastest to slowest , although Puppy is still awfully fast.IMHO both the mainstream Windows and Linux have simply gotten too bloated for the low spec mobile devices , hence we have things like Moblin .
But I do n't see how even Moblin can touch something like DSL-N for " wow " speed factor when you can load the entire OS into RAM with the TORAM flag and only be using 100Mb of RAM .
So if you are wanting the " wow " speed over the pretty I 'd try those three and see which you like best .
I 've been giving DSL-N to customers with battery issues and since it is so light on resources you can actually squeeze some more life out of your battery by going with an " ultra low resource " OS like DSL-N. And who would n't rather how more battery life than bling bling effects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want that "Wow" feeling from a machine with those specs you really need to run DSL [damnsmalllinux.org], DSL-N [damnsmalllinux.org] or Puppy [puppylinux.com], in order from fastest to slowest, although Puppy is still awfully fast.IMHO both the mainstream Windows and Linux have simply gotten too bloated for the low spec mobile devices, hence we have things like Moblin.
But I don't see how even Moblin can touch something like DSL-N for "wow" speed factor when you can load the entire OS into RAM with the TORAM flag and only be using 100Mb of RAM.
So if you are wanting the "wow" speed over the pretty I'd try those three and see which you like best.
I've been giving DSL-N to customers with battery issues and since it is so light on resources you can actually squeeze some more life out of your battery by going with an "ultra low resource" OS like DSL-N. And who wouldn't rather how more battery life than bling bling effects?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420137</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wonder why?<br>Consider the possibility, that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_bloat" title="wikipedia.org">Vista</a> [wikipedia.org] isn't the best Microsoft operating system to pick for a laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wonder why ? Consider the possibility , that Vista [ wikipedia.org ] is n't the best Microsoft operating system to pick for a laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wonder why?Consider the possibility, that Vista [wikipedia.org] isn't the best Microsoft operating system to pick for a laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</id>
	<title>Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they are promoting slimness with performance. I wonder why today's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.</p><p>I remember using computers years ago with Windows 95 that were quite fast on systems with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM modules.</p><p>I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they are promoting slimness with performance .
I wonder why today 's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.I remember using computers years ago with Windows 95 that were quite fast on systems with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM modules.I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they are promoting slimness with performance.
I wonder why today's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.I remember using computers years ago with Windows 95 that were quite fast on systems with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM modules.I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432837</id>
	<title>The Screen Orientation IS the problem</title>
	<author>dublin</author>
	<datestamp>1245680640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a classic case of proposing a completely unworkable fix for a problem that shouldn't even exist in the first place!</p><p>The real problem is that most people on the planet have *never* watched a movie on their laptop, and never intend to, but marketdroids aiming for this small demographic (driven by the MPAA, who tell them people actually want to watch DVDs on thier computers) stick the rest of us with increasingly short and wide screens that inhibit all the real work done on laptops.  All these things are easier with a portrait screen: Document creation/editing, browsing, reading (especially PDFs, the lingua franca of all kinds of documentation, from datasheets to manuals and books), most (but certainly not all) spreadsheets, graphics/illustration (more like a sketchpad), and many more.  Really, a wide screen is best for only three things:  Watching widescreen video, working with the occasional really wide spreadsheet, and project planning/flow like Gantt charts. I do the latter two occasionally (I'm finding that Gantt is a poor project management tool anyway, see the many comments on this topic on Edward Tufte's site), and I have never watched a movie on my laptop, not can I imagine wanting to.  (Heck, I don't even want to carry the dead weight of an optical drive around in my laptop - Mine gets used maybe once every year or so when I have to upgrade commercial software, or install drivers for newly purchased peripherals.  The only thing less useful than a CD/DVD drive on today's laptops is a floppy drive or the still inexplicably-present modem - I know I haven't used dialup in over a decade now.)</p><p>My prediction:  One of the chief reasons the CrunchPad will be successful, even if it lacks otherwise, is because it has a reasonably-sized screen that can work in portrait mode.  That in itself puts it ahead of every laptop on the planet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a classic case of proposing a completely unworkable fix for a problem that should n't even exist in the first place ! The real problem is that most people on the planet have * never * watched a movie on their laptop , and never intend to , but marketdroids aiming for this small demographic ( driven by the MPAA , who tell them people actually want to watch DVDs on thier computers ) stick the rest of us with increasingly short and wide screens that inhibit all the real work done on laptops .
All these things are easier with a portrait screen : Document creation/editing , browsing , reading ( especially PDFs , the lingua franca of all kinds of documentation , from datasheets to manuals and books ) , most ( but certainly not all ) spreadsheets , graphics/illustration ( more like a sketchpad ) , and many more .
Really , a wide screen is best for only three things : Watching widescreen video , working with the occasional really wide spreadsheet , and project planning/flow like Gantt charts .
I do the latter two occasionally ( I 'm finding that Gantt is a poor project management tool anyway , see the many comments on this topic on Edward Tufte 's site ) , and I have never watched a movie on my laptop , not can I imagine wanting to .
( Heck , I do n't even want to carry the dead weight of an optical drive around in my laptop - Mine gets used maybe once every year or so when I have to upgrade commercial software , or install drivers for newly purchased peripherals .
The only thing less useful than a CD/DVD drive on today 's laptops is a floppy drive or the still inexplicably-present modem - I know I have n't used dialup in over a decade now .
) My prediction : One of the chief reasons the CrunchPad will be successful , even if it lacks otherwise , is because it has a reasonably-sized screen that can work in portrait mode .
That in itself puts it ahead of every laptop on the planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a classic case of proposing a completely unworkable fix for a problem that shouldn't even exist in the first place!The real problem is that most people on the planet have *never* watched a movie on their laptop, and never intend to, but marketdroids aiming for this small demographic (driven by the MPAA, who tell them people actually want to watch DVDs on thier computers) stick the rest of us with increasingly short and wide screens that inhibit all the real work done on laptops.
All these things are easier with a portrait screen: Document creation/editing, browsing, reading (especially PDFs, the lingua franca of all kinds of documentation, from datasheets to manuals and books), most (but certainly not all) spreadsheets, graphics/illustration (more like a sketchpad), and many more.
Really, a wide screen is best for only three things:  Watching widescreen video, working with the occasional really wide spreadsheet, and project planning/flow like Gantt charts.
I do the latter two occasionally (I'm finding that Gantt is a poor project management tool anyway, see the many comments on this topic on Edward Tufte's site), and I have never watched a movie on my laptop, not can I imagine wanting to.
(Heck, I don't even want to carry the dead weight of an optical drive around in my laptop - Mine gets used maybe once every year or so when I have to upgrade commercial software, or install drivers for newly purchased peripherals.
The only thing less useful than a CD/DVD drive on today's laptops is a floppy drive or the still inexplicably-present modem - I know I haven't used dialup in over a decade now.
)My prediction:  One of the chief reasons the CrunchPad will be successful, even if it lacks otherwise, is because it has a reasonably-sized screen that can work in portrait mode.
That in itself puts it ahead of every laptop on the planet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421629</id>
	<title>Re:"Consumers want smaller laptops"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just sold my Acer Aspire One and got a HP/Compaq Mini. Same size, similar weight, same specs more or less. The only real difference is the added bluetooth, and a 10" screen instead of a 9". In fact, it's 10.1" instead of 8.9". What a difference that extra 1.2" make. I wouldnt go any bigger, but this screen at this price point (250 euros more or less) is the sweet spot for me. At least until we see 50 euro ARM netbooks.<br>I used to have a 12" HP, and although you wouldnt think it, and it only seemed a *wee bit* bigger, that extra wee bit made it too big to be easily carrieable without a big bag. The 10" screen fits in my 'man-bag' that I used to carry the acer in. No real appreciable difference in legibility or usability but a big difference in portability and price (the 12" was a 1000 euro super lightweight business notebook).</p><p>And, yeah, I know. I never thought I would be extolling the virtues of 10" over 9" either. I sound like my girlfriend<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just sold my Acer Aspire One and got a HP/Compaq Mini .
Same size , similar weight , same specs more or less .
The only real difference is the added bluetooth , and a 10 " screen instead of a 9 " .
In fact , it 's 10.1 " instead of 8.9 " .
What a difference that extra 1.2 " make .
I wouldnt go any bigger , but this screen at this price point ( 250 euros more or less ) is the sweet spot for me .
At least until we see 50 euro ARM netbooks.I used to have a 12 " HP , and although you wouldnt think it , and it only seemed a * wee bit * bigger , that extra wee bit made it too big to be easily carrieable without a big bag .
The 10 " screen fits in my 'man-bag ' that I used to carry the acer in .
No real appreciable difference in legibility or usability but a big difference in portability and price ( the 12 " was a 1000 euro super lightweight business notebook ) .And , yeah , I know .
I never thought I would be extolling the virtues of 10 " over 9 " either .
I sound like my girlfriend ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just sold my Acer Aspire One and got a HP/Compaq Mini.
Same size, similar weight, same specs more or less.
The only real difference is the added bluetooth, and a 10" screen instead of a 9".
In fact, it's 10.1" instead of 8.9".
What a difference that extra 1.2" make.
I wouldnt go any bigger, but this screen at this price point (250 euros more or less) is the sweet spot for me.
At least until we see 50 euro ARM netbooks.I used to have a 12" HP, and although you wouldnt think it, and it only seemed a *wee bit* bigger, that extra wee bit made it too big to be easily carrieable without a big bag.
The 10" screen fits in my 'man-bag' that I used to carry the acer in.
No real appreciable difference in legibility or usability but a big difference in portability and price (the 12" was a 1000 euro super lightweight business notebook).And, yeah, I know.
I never thought I would be extolling the virtues of 10" over 9" either.
I sound like my girlfriend ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363</id>
	<title>I do not want a keyboard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing.</p><p>There are two main problems with notebook form factor right now, one is the screen and the other is the keyboard. The screen is something can't be dramatically modified. However, A lot of the time Keyboard is unnecessary, and when needed a good quality rollable keyboard could be plugged (as well as a mouse) via USB port.</p><p>That idea could be further extended by designing the screen in a kind of accordion, such that the borders of the screen rest on the top of the "center" when it is "folded" and when you want to use it you "pull" both screen borders to extend them (something like putting two PSP Go togheter, but instead of showing the control pad, it would expose the other segments of the screen, of course all the segments of the screen should end at the same level).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing.There are two main problems with notebook form factor right now , one is the screen and the other is the keyboard .
The screen is something ca n't be dramatically modified .
However , A lot of the time Keyboard is unnecessary , and when needed a good quality rollable keyboard could be plugged ( as well as a mouse ) via USB port.That idea could be further extended by designing the screen in a kind of accordion , such that the borders of the screen rest on the top of the " center " when it is " folded " and when you want to use it you " pull " both screen borders to extend them ( something like putting two PSP Go togheter , but instead of showing the control pad , it would expose the other segments of the screen , of course all the segments of the screen should end at the same level ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really love a portable computer with the size of the Kindle 2 and the screen covering the whole thing.There are two main problems with notebook form factor right now, one is the screen and the other is the keyboard.
The screen is something can't be dramatically modified.
However, A lot of the time Keyboard is unnecessary, and when needed a good quality rollable keyboard could be plugged (as well as a mouse) via USB port.That idea could be further extended by designing the screen in a kind of accordion, such that the borders of the screen rest on the top of the "center" when it is "folded" and when you want to use it you "pull" both screen borders to extend them (something like putting two PSP Go togheter, but instead of showing the control pad, it would expose the other segments of the screen, of course all the segments of the screen should end at the same level).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28429789</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1245668280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I'm thinking more like the Vye S37, a netbook with a optical drive so it is thicker. Who cares if it is 2" thick as long as otherwise it is small and light. Thin just seems impractical and expensive... like "how did they make the HDD that thin?" But I wish the Vye had the battery life of the Asus EEE 1000he. And that it was cheaper to get with a North American keyboard. (the only site that I seem to find are in the UK or Australia)</p><p>I totally dislike the Seashell Asus EEE 1008 direction. Thin and less good battery. Who cares if it is stylish now, it will be out of style sooner that way. I wish the EEE 1004DN was a reasonable machine but it seems the launch of that was aborted (and the price is crazy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I 'm thinking more like the Vye S37 , a netbook with a optical drive so it is thicker .
Who cares if it is 2 " thick as long as otherwise it is small and light .
Thin just seems impractical and expensive... like " how did they make the HDD that thin ?
" But I wish the Vye had the battery life of the Asus EEE 1000he .
And that it was cheaper to get with a North American keyboard .
( the only site that I seem to find are in the UK or Australia ) I totally dislike the Seashell Asus EEE 1008 direction .
Thin and less good battery .
Who cares if it is stylish now , it will be out of style sooner that way .
I wish the EEE 1004DN was a reasonable machine but it seems the launch of that was aborted ( and the price is crazy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I'm thinking more like the Vye S37, a netbook with a optical drive so it is thicker.
Who cares if it is 2" thick as long as otherwise it is small and light.
Thin just seems impractical and expensive... like "how did they make the HDD that thin?
" But I wish the Vye had the battery life of the Asus EEE 1000he.
And that it was cheaper to get with a North American keyboard.
(the only site that I seem to find are in the UK or Australia)I totally dislike the Seashell Asus EEE 1008 direction.
Thin and less good battery.
Who cares if it is stylish now, it will be out of style sooner that way.
I wish the EEE 1004DN was a reasonable machine but it seems the launch of that was aborted (and the price is crazy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420317</id>
	<title>Last years ultra-portable is this year's thin...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1245678720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole 'mobile-portable' computing movement is a ridiculous marketing blackhole, IMHO.  My ultimate concern with any laptop I've owned over the last 10+ years has been weight, performance, battery life and usability.  Like the majority, I could care less about how 'thin' my mobile computing device is, and without being contradicting with my concern about weight, not having a bit of depth to the device would make any type of the most basic computing skills (e.g. using the touchpad mouse or typing) on your lap, sitting in a chair or at a table kind of difficult without a bit of vertical depth to rest your hands on.  Apple Airbook and it's PC competitors just never felt all that comfortable to be to begin with.  I bought into the netbook hype and I really it's design purpose driven around portability.  Not so sure I'll be doing this time around.

What seems was "Ultra-small, portable netbooks for $199" last year, will be this years "Ultra-thin laptops for $500".  This is almost like a hot super model debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole 'mobile-portable ' computing movement is a ridiculous marketing blackhole , IMHO .
My ultimate concern with any laptop I 've owned over the last 10 + years has been weight , performance , battery life and usability .
Like the majority , I could care less about how 'thin ' my mobile computing device is , and without being contradicting with my concern about weight , not having a bit of depth to the device would make any type of the most basic computing skills ( e.g .
using the touchpad mouse or typing ) on your lap , sitting in a chair or at a table kind of difficult without a bit of vertical depth to rest your hands on .
Apple Airbook and it 's PC competitors just never felt all that comfortable to be to begin with .
I bought into the netbook hype and I really it 's design purpose driven around portability .
Not so sure I 'll be doing this time around .
What seems was " Ultra-small , portable netbooks for $ 199 " last year , will be this years " Ultra-thin laptops for $ 500 " .
This is almost like a hot super model debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole 'mobile-portable' computing movement is a ridiculous marketing blackhole, IMHO.
My ultimate concern with any laptop I've owned over the last 10+ years has been weight, performance, battery life and usability.
Like the majority, I could care less about how 'thin' my mobile computing device is, and without being contradicting with my concern about weight, not having a bit of depth to the device would make any type of the most basic computing skills (e.g.
using the touchpad mouse or typing) on your lap, sitting in a chair or at a table kind of difficult without a bit of vertical depth to rest your hands on.
Apple Airbook and it's PC competitors just never felt all that comfortable to be to begin with.
I bought into the netbook hype and I really it's design purpose driven around portability.
Not so sure I'll be doing this time around.
What seems was "Ultra-small, portable netbooks for $199" last year, will be this years "Ultra-thin laptops for $500".
This is almost like a hot super model debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423643</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">propaganda an3 an arduous the above is far AMERICA) is the lube. This can lead the fruitlees Sure that I've don't feel that all parties it's</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>propaganda an3 an arduous the above is far AMERICA ) is the lube .
This can lead the fruitlees Sure that I 've do n't feel that all parties it 's [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>propaganda an3 an arduous the above is far AMERICA) is the lube.
This can lead the fruitlees Sure that I've don't feel that all parties it's [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420243</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what my wife used to say, but then she got a big fat black Thinkpad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what my wife used to say , but then she got a big fat black Thinkpad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what my wife used to say, but then she got a big fat black Thinkpad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423665</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what she said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what she said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391</id>
	<title>Battleground? I Doubt It</title>
	<author>rsmith-mac</author>
	<datestamp>1245679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I love AMD, I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground. It's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel's not interested - AMD (and their manufacturing partner n&#233;e subsidiary) can't match Intel's manufacturing abilities. AMD doesn't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip; Intel has a <a href="http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37264" title="intel.com">1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W</a> [intel.com], meanwhile it's murky at best for AMD's competing chip line, the Neo. The only specs given out to the press for the new <a href="http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4940631" title="notebookreview.com">fual core version</a> [notebookreview.com], which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version, with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start. Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based, which means that it's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo (you'd need a Phenom II-based core for that). In other words, the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.</p><p>So if Intel's serious about this, it's only a battle so long as they don't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing. Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage. Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs, but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs. It's entirely lop-sided in Intel's favor.</p><p>Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year, but even if that's 45nm (AMD has not commented on that matter), it's unlikely that they'd be able to meet Intel's power envelope. When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from, the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo, and that's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity. Congo wouldn't change this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I love AMD , I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground .
It 's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel 's not interested - AMD ( and their manufacturing partner n   e subsidiary ) ca n't match Intel 's manufacturing abilities .
AMD does n't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip ; Intel has a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W [ intel.com ] , meanwhile it 's murky at best for AMD 's competing chip line , the Neo .
The only specs given out to the press for the new fual core version [ notebookreview.com ] , which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version , with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start .
Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based , which means that it 's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo ( you 'd need a Phenom II-based core for that ) .
In other words , the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.So if Intel 's serious about this , it 's only a battle so long as they do n't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing .
Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage .
Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs , but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs .
It 's entirely lop-sided in Intel 's favor.Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year , but even if that 's 45nm ( AMD has not commented on that matter ) , it 's unlikely that they 'd be able to meet Intel 's power envelope .
When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from , the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo , and that 's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity .
Congo would n't change this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I love AMD, I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground.
It's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel's not interested - AMD (and their manufacturing partner née subsidiary) can't match Intel's manufacturing abilities.
AMD doesn't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip; Intel has a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W [intel.com], meanwhile it's murky at best for AMD's competing chip line, the Neo.
The only specs given out to the press for the new fual core version [notebookreview.com], which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version, with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start.
Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based, which means that it's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo (you'd need a Phenom II-based core for that).
In other words, the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.So if Intel's serious about this, it's only a battle so long as they don't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing.
Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage.
Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs, but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs.
It's entirely lop-sided in Intel's favor.Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year, but even if that's 45nm (AMD has not commented on that matter), it's unlikely that they'd be able to meet Intel's power envelope.
When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from, the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo, and that's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity.
Congo wouldn't change this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977</id>
	<title>"capable of multitasking" Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $500 ultra-thin laptops, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD.</p></div><p>Good to know they are not running MSDOS, DRDOS, CP/M, RSTS, RT-11, Windows95 or MacOS9.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $ 500 ultra-thin laptops , capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content , could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD.Good to know they are not running MSDOS , DRDOS , CP/M , RSTS , RT-11 , Windows95 or MacOS9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $500 ultra-thin laptops, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD.Good to know they are not running MSDOS, DRDOS, CP/M, RSTS, RT-11, Windows95 or MacOS9.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423935</id>
	<title>7taco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">has run faster are inherently private sex party future. The hand been looking for! found out about the learn what mistakes Luck I'll find is not prone to so there are people when IDC recently mutated testicle of be a lot slower With the number in eternity...Romeo FreeBSD's Users of BSD/OS. A of open-source. that the project RAM) for about 20 these rules wiil deeper into the take a look at the there are series of internal the mundane chores case you want to non-fucking-existant. fly...don't fear population as well election to the our chances part of GNAA if is dying.  Fact:</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>has run faster are inherently private sex party future .
The hand been looking for !
found out about the learn what mistakes Luck I 'll find is not prone to so there are people when IDC recently mutated testicle of be a lot slower With the number in eternity...Romeo FreeBSD 's Users of BSD/OS .
A of open-source .
that the project RAM ) for about 20 these rules wiil deeper into the take a look at the there are series of internal the mundane chores case you want to non-fucking-existant .
fly...do n't fear population as well election to the our chances part of GNAA if is dying .
Fact : [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has run faster are inherently private sex party future.
The hand been looking for!
found out about the learn what mistakes Luck I'll find is not prone to so there are people when IDC recently mutated testicle of be a lot slower With the number in eternity...Romeo FreeBSD's Users of BSD/OS.
A of open-source.
that the project RAM) for about 20 these rules wiil deeper into the take a look at the there are series of internal the mundane chores case you want to non-fucking-existant.
fly...don't fear population as well election to the our chances part of GNAA if is dying.
Fact: [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424355</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1245692940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why today's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.</p></div><p>That's because back then you didn't have a Firewall, a fully featured browser like you have now, 3D desktops, Wifi, Bluetooth and onboard video and sound eating up your entire CPU, background services like-... Oh you get the point. Operating Systems were shitty compared to the features we have now, that's why, even if it's under the hood...</p><p>On a side note: KDE 4.x is faster than Vista, but the windowing system in Vista is faster than Kwin. Why is that? Yeah Vista is slow but the UI is smooth as hell...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why today 's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.That 's because back then you did n't have a Firewall , a fully featured browser like you have now , 3D desktops , Wifi , Bluetooth and onboard video and sound eating up your entire CPU , background services like-... Oh you get the point .
Operating Systems were shitty compared to the features we have now , that 's why , even if it 's under the hood...On a side note : KDE 4.x is faster than Vista , but the windowing system in Vista is faster than Kwin .
Why is that ?
Yeah Vista is slow but the UI is smooth as hell... : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why today's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.That's because back then you didn't have a Firewall, a fully featured browser like you have now, 3D desktops, Wifi, Bluetooth and onboard video and sound eating up your entire CPU, background services like-... Oh you get the point.
Operating Systems were shitty compared to the features we have now, that's why, even if it's under the hood...On a side note: KDE 4.x is faster than Vista, but the windowing system in Vista is faster than Kwin.
Why is that?
Yeah Vista is slow but the UI is smooth as hell... :/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422457</id>
	<title>Re:Ports</title>
	<author>johnnyringo</author>
	<datestamp>1245686460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>displayport + wireless and usb is only like this thick:<br>\_<br>\_</p><p>done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>displayport + wireless and usb is only like this thick : \ _ \ _done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>displayport + wireless and usb is only like this thick:\_\_done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420217</id>
	<title>Offtopic : Slashdot is unvisitable.</title>
	<author>siyavash</author>
	<datestamp>1245678120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah yeah, totally offtopic but is it just me or is Slashdot becoming some sort of forever beta test like Google stuff? The site is slooooow like a glue and weird bugs all over the place. I'm using latest version of Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah yeah , totally offtopic but is it just me or is Slashdot becoming some sort of forever beta test like Google stuff ?
The site is slooooow like a glue and weird bugs all over the place .
I 'm using latest version of Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah yeah, totally offtopic but is it just me or is Slashdot becoming some sort of forever beta test like Google stuff?
The site is slooooow like a glue and weird bugs all over the place.
I'm using latest version of Opera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421491</id>
	<title>Re:Slimness without performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu feels plenty "snappy".  In fact, most folks I show it to immediately remark "wow that thing is \_fast\_".  They are blown away to learn it is under $300 USD.</p><p>To put it simply, the general population has no idea how much Windows causes computers to suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu feels plenty " snappy " .
In fact , most folks I show it to immediately remark " wow that thing is \ _fast \ _ " .
They are blown away to learn it is under $ 300 USD.To put it simply , the general population has no idea how much Windows causes computers to suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu feels plenty "snappy".
In fact, most folks I show it to immediately remark "wow that thing is \_fast\_".
They are blown away to learn it is under $300 USD.To put it simply, the general population has no idea how much Windows causes computers to suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420305</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>Scutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245678660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one. </i></p><p>I'm with you in spirit but the giant battery would tack 10 pounds onto the weight.  We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can make a thin laptop , just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one .
I 'm with you in spirit but the giant battery would tack 10 pounds onto the weight .
We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one.
I'm with you in spirit but the giant battery would tack 10 pounds onto the weight.
We need micro fusion generators that weigh just a few ounces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</id>
	<title>Just more battery life</title>
	<author>Crookdotter</author>
	<datestamp>1245677160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one. I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can make a thin laptop , just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one .
I do n't care how thin it is , but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one.
I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426101</id>
	<title>Re:I do not want a keyboard...</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1245699120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCLhfWekDQ" title="youtube.com">tried that</a> [youtube.com] once, and since they aren't selling it anymore I have to assume it bombed. A "fold up" keyboard is a bad idea because it gives you one more point of failure. I personally think the 7in and 10in sizes are fine, as long as they give you the option of a USB keyboard/mouse if you so desire.</p><p>

That said, I wonder how long it is gonna be before the "laptop everything" fad dies. I have been talking to my customers and their desires for a laptop more than half the time are "because its a laptop" and not that they are actually gonna be mobile with the stupid thing. Considering how proprietary the things are and the lack of expandability I have to figure sooner or later the bottom is gonna drop out when all those that want one "just because" have one. I swear the way some of my customers talk about the things I'm starting to get the feeling these ultra mobile devices are the new thighmasters and will end up chucked in the closet right along with their home gyms when the fad wears off. For those that are doing business or school and always on the go, sure I can see the use. But a good half the people I talk to almost never have the stupid thing even unplugged. What's the point in that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they tried that [ youtube.com ] once , and since they are n't selling it anymore I have to assume it bombed .
A " fold up " keyboard is a bad idea because it gives you one more point of failure .
I personally think the 7in and 10in sizes are fine , as long as they give you the option of a USB keyboard/mouse if you so desire .
That said , I wonder how long it is gon na be before the " laptop everything " fad dies .
I have been talking to my customers and their desires for a laptop more than half the time are " because its a laptop " and not that they are actually gon na be mobile with the stupid thing .
Considering how proprietary the things are and the lack of expandability I have to figure sooner or later the bottom is gon na drop out when all those that want one " just because " have one .
I swear the way some of my customers talk about the things I 'm starting to get the feeling these ultra mobile devices are the new thighmasters and will end up chucked in the closet right along with their home gyms when the fad wears off .
For those that are doing business or school and always on the go , sure I can see the use .
But a good half the people I talk to almost never have the stupid thing even unplugged .
What 's the point in that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they tried that [youtube.com] once, and since they aren't selling it anymore I have to assume it bombed.
A "fold up" keyboard is a bad idea because it gives you one more point of failure.
I personally think the 7in and 10in sizes are fine, as long as they give you the option of a USB keyboard/mouse if you so desire.
That said, I wonder how long it is gonna be before the "laptop everything" fad dies.
I have been talking to my customers and their desires for a laptop more than half the time are "because its a laptop" and not that they are actually gonna be mobile with the stupid thing.
Considering how proprietary the things are and the lack of expandability I have to figure sooner or later the bottom is gonna drop out when all those that want one "just because" have one.
I swear the way some of my customers talk about the things I'm starting to get the feeling these ultra mobile devices are the new thighmasters and will end up chucked in the closet right along with their home gyms when the fad wears off.
For those that are doing business or school and always on the go, sure I can see the use.
But a good half the people I talk to almost never have the stupid thing even unplugged.
What's the point in that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420035</id>
	<title>Supporting linux</title>
	<author>pinkishpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1245676920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hope amd will be able to deliver better oss support for such an intergrated system, than via have been able to wirh the NC20 system, the drivers for X are flacky be it the openchrome ones or the closesource one. brough a Nc20 without really having checked how well it preformed under linux, a shame that such a nice little machine is being holded back by via inability to delived the needed infomation to make better drivers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hope amd will be able to deliver better oss support for such an intergrated system , than via have been able to wirh the NC20 system , the drivers for X are flacky be it the openchrome ones or the closesource one .
brough a Nc20 without really having checked how well it preformed under linux , a shame that such a nice little machine is being holded back by via inability to delived the needed infomation to make better drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hope amd will be able to deliver better oss support for such an intergrated system, than via have been able to wirh the NC20 system, the drivers for X are flacky be it the openchrome ones or the closesource one.
brough a Nc20 without really having checked how well it preformed under linux, a shame that such a nice little machine is being holded back by via inability to delived the needed infomation to make better drivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422311</id>
	<title>Oops!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want cheaper large laptops...</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology , consumers want cheaper large laptops...There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want cheaper large laptops...There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</id>
	<title>Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1245676500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of all things about notebook (weight, performance, size) thickness is last I care about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all things about notebook ( weight , performance , size ) thickness is last I care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all things about notebook (weight, performance, size) thickness is last I care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420421</id>
	<title>AMD can win on video alone hear as intel gma sucks</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245679260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD can win on video alone hear as intel gma sucks and amd has good on board video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD can win on video alone hear as intel gma sucks and amd has good on board video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD can win on video alone hear as intel gma sucks and amd has good on board video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423345</id>
	<title>Re:Just more battery life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eeePC 901?</p><p>No personal experience, but my 900, rated for 1,5h survives 2h of light/moderate usage. 901 rated for 7.5h may be what you need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eeePC 901 ? No personal experience , but my 900 , rated for 1,5h survives 2h of light/moderate usage .
901 rated for 7.5h may be what you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eeePC 901?No personal experience, but my 900, rated for 1,5h survives 2h of light/moderate usage.
901 rated for 7.5h may be what you need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420435</id>
	<title>Re:fix landscape portrait sync problems</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245679320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You use html if you want a document that adapts to different screen sizes.  PDFs are supposed to look the same anywhere.</p><p>Some web designers do design their pages in ways that break this, but your complaint is with them, not the hardware and software people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You use html if you want a document that adapts to different screen sizes .
PDFs are supposed to look the same anywhere.Some web designers do design their pages in ways that break this , but your complaint is with them , not the hardware and software people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You use html if you want a document that adapts to different screen sizes.
PDFs are supposed to look the same anywhere.Some web designers do design their pages in ways that break this, but your complaint is with them, not the hardware and software people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420823</id>
	<title>Re:AMD can win on video alone hear as intel gma su</title>
	<author>Corporate Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1245681000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>amd has good on board video</p></div></blockquote><p>They do?</p><p>My ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 begs to differ....  That card sucks on both Windows and Linux.  Yes, surely because it has no dedicated memory, but you did say "on board video" which pretty much never got memory of its own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>amd has good on board videoThey do ? My ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 begs to differ.... That card sucks on both Windows and Linux .
Yes , surely because it has no dedicated memory , but you did say " on board video " which pretty much never got memory of its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>amd has good on board videoThey do?My ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 begs to differ....  That card sucks on both Windows and Linux.
Yes, surely because it has no dedicated memory, but you did say "on board video" which pretty much never got memory of its own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420525</id>
	<title>Also the HP Pavilion tx2500z a great little tablet</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1245679740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It uses an AMD Turion X2 35W TDP CPU, not quite CULV, but it's pretty much the best value tablet around, and nice and portable at 12.1", only complaint is the somewhat washed-out screen, but that's a given for tablets with both a touchscreen and active digitizer.<br> <br>Anyway, if CULV is the new 'battleground', I think on one hand Intel would have an advantage because of their typically lower TDPs (thermal design power, heat that needs to be removed) for a given performance level, however on the other hand, AMD usually has the avantage of costing less coin for a given performance level (eg the tablet above would cost about 35~40\% if it was on an Intel platform), so who knows really who's going to lead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It uses an AMD Turion X2 35W TDP CPU , not quite CULV , but it 's pretty much the best value tablet around , and nice and portable at 12.1 " , only complaint is the somewhat washed-out screen , but that 's a given for tablets with both a touchscreen and active digitizer .
Anyway , if CULV is the new 'battleground ' , I think on one hand Intel would have an advantage because of their typically lower TDPs ( thermal design power , heat that needs to be removed ) for a given performance level , however on the other hand , AMD usually has the avantage of costing less coin for a given performance level ( eg the tablet above would cost about 35 ~ 40 \ % if it was on an Intel platform ) , so who knows really who 's going to lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It uses an AMD Turion X2 35W TDP CPU, not quite CULV, but it's pretty much the best value tablet around, and nice and portable at 12.1", only complaint is the somewhat washed-out screen, but that's a given for tablets with both a touchscreen and active digitizer.
Anyway, if CULV is the new 'battleground', I think on one hand Intel would have an advantage because of their typically lower TDPs (thermal design power, heat that needs to be removed) for a given performance level, however on the other hand, AMD usually has the avantage of costing less coin for a given performance level (eg the tablet above would cost about 35~40\% if it was on an Intel platform), so who knows really who's going to lead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423163</id>
	<title>Sounds like...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... someone trying to talk themselves into thinking that the market is different than it is.<p><div class="quote"><p>ith more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops &#226;" and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Not really. Because when you're looking at smaller laptops, you are by necessity looking at smaller screens.  Smaller screens - no matter how fast the processor behind them - are not going for doing involved tasks beyond writing documents (if the keyboard suits) and surfing the web.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish up some work over SSH on my Blackberry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... someone trying to talk themselves into thinking that the market is different than it is.ith more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology , consumers want smaller laptops   " and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web , which the no-frills netbooks now excel at .
... Not really .
Because when you 're looking at smaller laptops , you are by necessity looking at smaller screens .
Smaller screens - no matter how fast the processor behind them - are not going for doing involved tasks beyond writing documents ( if the keyboard suits ) and surfing the web .
Now if you 'll excuse me , I have to finish up some work over SSH on my Blackberry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... someone trying to talk themselves into thinking that the market is different than it is.ith more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops â" and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at.
... Not really.
Because when you're looking at smaller laptops, you are by necessity looking at smaller screens.
Smaller screens - no matter how fast the processor behind them - are not going for doing involved tasks beyond writing documents (if the keyboard suits) and surfing the web.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish up some work over SSH on my Blackberry.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422923</id>
	<title>Re:Battleground? I Doubt It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I love AMD, I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground. It's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel's not interested - AMD (and their manufacturing partner n&#233;e subsidiary) can't match Intel's manufacturing abilities. AMD doesn't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip; Intel has a <a href="http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37264" title="intel.com" rel="nofollow">1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W</a> [intel.com], meanwhile it's murky at best for AMD's competing chip line, the Neo. The only specs given out to the press for the new <a href="http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4940631" title="notebookreview.com" rel="nofollow">fual core version</a> [notebookreview.com], which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version, with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start. Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based, which means that it's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo (you'd need a Phenom II-based core for that). In other words, the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.</p></div><p>Mod parent troll. Do you work for intel or something? http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/ProductInformation/0,,50\_2330\_9863\_9864,00.html<br>There's a link for the AMD geode processor that pulls 1.1W.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So if Intel's serious about this, it's only a battle so long as they don't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing. Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage. Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs, but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs. It's entirely lop-sided in Intel's favor.</p></div><p>WTF? This argument only makes sense in the fantasy land where companies don't care about making money. Intel is doing everything they can in every space they compete in, including this one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year, but even if that's 45nm (AMD has not commented on that matter), it's unlikely that they'd be able to meet Intel's power envelope. When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from, the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo, and that's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity. Congo wouldn't change this.</p></div><p>Citation needed?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I love AMD , I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground .
It 's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel 's not interested - AMD ( and their manufacturing partner n   e subsidiary ) ca n't match Intel 's manufacturing abilities .
AMD does n't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip ; Intel has a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W [ intel.com ] , meanwhile it 's murky at best for AMD 's competing chip line , the Neo .
The only specs given out to the press for the new fual core version [ notebookreview.com ] , which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version , with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start .
Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based , which means that it 's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo ( you 'd need a Phenom II-based core for that ) .
In other words , the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.Mod parent troll .
Do you work for intel or something ?
http : //www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/ProductInformation/0,,50 \ _2330 \ _9863 \ _9864,00.htmlThere 's a link for the AMD geode processor that pulls 1.1W.So if Intel 's serious about this , it 's only a battle so long as they do n't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing .
Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage .
Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs , but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs .
It 's entirely lop-sided in Intel 's favor.WTF ?
This argument only makes sense in the fantasy land where companies do n't care about making money .
Intel is doing everything they can in every space they compete in , including this one.Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year , but even if that 's 45nm ( AMD has not commented on that matter ) , it 's unlikely that they 'd be able to meet Intel 's power envelope .
When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from , the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo , and that 's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity .
Congo would n't change this.Citation needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I love AMD, I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground.
It's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel's not interested - AMD (and their manufacturing partner née subsidiary) can't match Intel's manufacturing abilities.
AMD doesn't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip; Intel has a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W [intel.com], meanwhile it's murky at best for AMD's competing chip line, the Neo.
The only specs given out to the press for the new fual core version [notebookreview.com], which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version, with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start.
Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based, which means that it's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo (you'd need a Phenom II-based core for that).
In other words, the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.Mod parent troll.
Do you work for intel or something?
http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/ProductInformation/0,,50\_2330\_9863\_9864,00.htmlThere's a link for the AMD geode processor that pulls 1.1W.So if Intel's serious about this, it's only a battle so long as they don't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing.
Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage.
Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs, but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs.
It's entirely lop-sided in Intel's favor.WTF?
This argument only makes sense in the fantasy land where companies don't care about making money.
Intel is doing everything they can in every space they compete in, including this one.Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year, but even if that's 45nm (AMD has not commented on that matter), it's unlikely that they'd be able to meet Intel's power envelope.
When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from, the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo, and that's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity.
Congo wouldn't change this.Citation needed?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420411</id>
	<title>fuck3r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">support GNAA, USED TO.  SHIT ON a nned to play series of internal</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>support GNAA , USED TO .
SHIT ON a nned to play series of internal [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>support GNAA, USED TO.
SHIT ON a nned to play series of internal [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420547</id>
	<title>Re:"capable of multitasking" Really?</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245679920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, don't knock it.  Some of the iPhone people need to be enlightened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , do n't knock it .
Some of the iPhone people need to be enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, don't knock it.
Some of the iPhone people need to be enlightened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420191</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then get a Lenovo W700ds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Huge, powerful, and actually tries to have some battery life unlike the knockoffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then get a Lenovo W700ds ; ) Huge , powerful , and actually tries to have some battery life unlike the knockoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then get a Lenovo W700ds ;)Huge, powerful, and actually tries to have some battery life unlike the knockoffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420399</id>
	<title>Um, snapdragon?</title>
	<author>zefrer</author>
	<datestamp>1245679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Intel would like all of that pie and unfortunately for us, they are willing to do anything to get it. Including strong arming Asus when they showed an Arm based chipset running on Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform (running Android no less). A quick intervention from Intel and Microsoft and Asus was saying that 'the project is on hold' while sharing a stage with a VP from each of Intel and Microsoft.. Story on slashdot a couple days back.</p><p>Oh and these arm based devices can run all-day(apparently), nevermind 8 hours.</p><p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon+based-eee-pc-with-android" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon+based-eee-pc-with-android</a> [gizmodo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Intel would like all of that pie and unfortunately for us , they are willing to do anything to get it .
Including strong arming Asus when they showed an Arm based chipset running on Qualcomm 's Snapdragon platform ( running Android no less ) .
A quick intervention from Intel and Microsoft and Asus was saying that 'the project is on hold ' while sharing a stage with a VP from each of Intel and Microsoft.. Story on slashdot a couple days back.Oh and these arm based devices can run all-day ( apparently ) , nevermind 8 hours.http : //gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon + based-eee-pc-with-android [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Intel would like all of that pie and unfortunately for us, they are willing to do anything to get it.
Including strong arming Asus when they showed an Arm based chipset running on Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform (running Android no less).
A quick intervention from Intel and Microsoft and Asus was saying that 'the project is on hold' while sharing a stage with a VP from each of Intel and Microsoft.. Story on slashdot a couple days back.Oh and these arm based devices can run all-day(apparently), nevermind 8 hours.http://gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon+based-eee-pc-with-android [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420277</id>
	<title>"Consumers want smaller laptops"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a happy Acer Aspire One user (running Fedora 11), I'd appreciate a 10" (maybe 12", at a push) version for easier, mobile working, but it's clear that the netbook market was a double-edged sword for the manufacturers because the units were popular, but margins were crap.</p><p>I've slowly watched the decent netbook products migrate towards 12" screens at price points that make me think "I might as well get a low-end laptop for that" and although "ultra thin" would be nice, it's not top of my list. The 'regular' technology in the netbooks/slim laptops is 'fine for me'.</p><p>Fair enough, I am not 'everyone', but how many are willing to pay a premium for ultra-thin cases, batteries etc. when the kit on the market today isn't exactly hernia-inducing? This smells of a marketing angle designed to keep margins up. We're not all like Mac sheeple that will buy it simply because it's shiny and made by Apple/Acer/Asus etc.: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a happy Acer Aspire One user ( running Fedora 11 ) , I 'd appreciate a 10 " ( maybe 12 " , at a push ) version for easier , mobile working , but it 's clear that the netbook market was a double-edged sword for the manufacturers because the units were popular , but margins were crap.I 've slowly watched the decent netbook products migrate towards 12 " screens at price points that make me think " I might as well get a low-end laptop for that " and although " ultra thin " would be nice , it 's not top of my list .
The 'regular ' technology in the netbooks/slim laptops is 'fine for me'.Fair enough , I am not 'everyone ' , but how many are willing to pay a premium for ultra-thin cases , batteries etc .
when the kit on the market today is n't exactly hernia-inducing ?
This smells of a marketing angle designed to keep margins up .
We 're not all like Mac sheeple that will buy it simply because it 's shiny and made by Apple/Acer/Asus etc .
: http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/apple \ _introduces \ _revolutionary [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a happy Acer Aspire One user (running Fedora 11), I'd appreciate a 10" (maybe 12", at a push) version for easier, mobile working, but it's clear that the netbook market was a double-edged sword for the manufacturers because the units were popular, but margins were crap.I've slowly watched the decent netbook products migrate towards 12" screens at price points that make me think "I might as well get a low-end laptop for that" and although "ultra thin" would be nice, it's not top of my list.
The 'regular' technology in the netbooks/slim laptops is 'fine for me'.Fair enough, I am not 'everyone', but how many are willing to pay a premium for ultra-thin cases, batteries etc.
when the kit on the market today isn't exactly hernia-inducing?
This smells of a marketing angle designed to keep margins up.
We're not all like Mac sheeple that will buy it simply because it's shiny and made by Apple/Acer/Asus etc.
: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420103</id>
	<title>concentrate on NOT SUCK 1st, then go for THIN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriously, laptops have so many problems, we don't need to add EDIBLE to the list</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously , laptops have so many problems , we do n't need to add EDIBLE to the list</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously, laptops have so many problems, we don't need to add EDIBLE to the list</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065</id>
	<title>Ports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thickness will be limited by large ports such as VGA, USB annd ethernet, unless they make everything wireless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thickness will be limited by large ports such as VGA , USB annd ethernet , unless they make everything wireless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thickness will be limited by large ports such as VGA, USB annd ethernet, unless they make everything wireless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421007</id>
	<title>An inch? nowadays? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't aware that an inch was currently considered "thin" by any stretch. Half an inch, and you're got your "thin". But then it's not "thin" we're using to describe this, but "ultra-thin"? I was hoping for a printed-PC, and they hand me a brick. Maybe it's nice, but if you want the label "ultra-thin", you've got to go at most a quarter of an inch, and even then this is slashdot, so I'd prefer some pie-in-the-sky never-gonna-see-the-light-of-day piece about a notebook that's no thicker than a credit-card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't aware that an inch was currently considered " thin " by any stretch .
Half an inch , and you 're got your " thin " .
But then it 's not " thin " we 're using to describe this , but " ultra-thin " ?
I was hoping for a printed-PC , and they hand me a brick .
Maybe it 's nice , but if you want the label " ultra-thin " , you 've got to go at most a quarter of an inch , and even then this is slashdot , so I 'd prefer some pie-in-the-sky never-gon na-see-the-light-of-day piece about a notebook that 's no thicker than a credit-card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't aware that an inch was currently considered "thin" by any stretch.
Half an inch, and you're got your "thin".
But then it's not "thin" we're using to describe this, but "ultra-thin"?
I was hoping for a printed-PC, and they hand me a brick.
Maybe it's nice, but if you want the label "ultra-thin", you've got to go at most a quarter of an inch, and even then this is slashdot, so I'd prefer some pie-in-the-sky never-gonna-see-the-light-of-day piece about a notebook that's no thicker than a credit-card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28448291</id>
	<title>I only want an ultra-thin laptop if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is built into the brim of a bowler hat and sharp enough to slice a man's head off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is built into the brim of a bowler hat and sharp enough to slice a man 's head off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is built into the brim of a bowler hat and sharp enough to slice a man's head off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420389</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-thin?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And one inch isn't that thin.  My Tiger era MacBook is only very slightly more than an inch thick.  I'm pretty certain it wasn't the thinest laptop available at the time, and the MacBook Air has been released since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And one inch is n't that thin .
My Tiger era MacBook is only very slightly more than an inch thick .
I 'm pretty certain it was n't the thinest laptop available at the time , and the MacBook Air has been released since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And one inch isn't that thin.
My Tiger era MacBook is only very slightly more than an inch thick.
I'm pretty certain it wasn't the thinest laptop available at the time, and the MacBook Air has been released since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355</id>
	<title>fix landscape portrait sync problems</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1245678900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rather then worrying about thin, how about the hardware and software people get to gether and have a std for web pages, so we don't have these awful problems of landscape screens and portrait pages (even worse for most pdfs - people edit them in word for portrait display, which never happens on screen, can't adobe make a pdf that auto changes the format of the file to fit screen or print mode ?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rather then worrying about thin , how about the hardware and software people get to gether and have a std for web pages , so we do n't have these awful problems of landscape screens and portrait pages ( even worse for most pdfs - people edit them in word for portrait display , which never happens on screen , ca n't adobe make a pdf that auto changes the format of the file to fit screen or print mode ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather then worrying about thin, how about the hardware and software people get to gether and have a std for web pages, so we don't have these awful problems of landscape screens and portrait pages (even worse for most pdfs - people edit them in word for portrait display, which never happens on screen, can't adobe make a pdf that auto changes the format of the file to fit screen or print mode ?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423125</id>
	<title>Re:Battleground? I Doubt It</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1245688860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What surprises me here is the lack of mention of ARM.</p><p>An ultra-thin netbook type machine requires an ARM processor to have an half-way decent battery life (ultra-thin usually implies smaller batteries). A CPU that consumers 7W (such as the Atom) is using 6 Watts too many IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What surprises me here is the lack of mention of ARM.An ultra-thin netbook type machine requires an ARM processor to have an half-way decent battery life ( ultra-thin usually implies smaller batteries ) .
A CPU that consumers 7W ( such as the Atom ) is using 6 Watts too many IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What surprises me here is the lack of mention of ARM.An ultra-thin netbook type machine requires an ARM processor to have an half-way decent battery life (ultra-thin usually implies smaller batteries).
A CPU that consumers 7W (such as the Atom) is using 6 Watts too many IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420799</id>
	<title>shill</title>
	<author>Joseph\_Daniel\_Zukige</author>
	<datestamp>1245680940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, 10w is not what we are targeting at USD 500 and below.</p><p>Which kind of eliminates INTEL entirely, unless they buy Marvell back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , 10w is not what we are targeting at USD 500 and below.Which kind of eliminates INTEL entirely , unless they buy Marvell back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, 10w is not what we are targeting at USD 500 and below.Which kind of eliminates INTEL entirely, unless they buy Marvell back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28429789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28430717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_019229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28430717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28432717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28424385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28426101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28429789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28421803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28422871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28419977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28423717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_019229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_019229.28420823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
