<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_2236210</id>
	<title>The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246015260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>N!NJA writes with this excerpt from PCWorld:
<i>"A tectonic shift has taken place for the digital age: ad rates for popular shows like The Simpsons and CSI are <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/167344/the\_simpsons\_worth\_more\_on\_hulu\_than\_fox.html">higher online than they are on prime-time TV</a>. If a company wants to run ads alongside an episode of The Simpsons on Hulu or TV.com, it will cost the advertiser about $60 per thousand viewers, according to Bloomberg. On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers. Online viewers have to actively seek out the program they want to watch, so advertisers end up with a guaranteed audience for their commercial every time someone clicks play on Hulu or TV.com. Online programs also have an average of 37 seconds of commercials during an episode, while prime-time TV averages nine minutes of ads."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>N ! NJA writes with this excerpt from PCWorld : " A tectonic shift has taken place for the digital age : ad rates for popular shows like The Simpsons and CSI are higher online than they are on prime-time TV .
If a company wants to run ads alongside an episode of The Simpsons on Hulu or TV.com , it will cost the advertiser about $ 60 per thousand viewers , according to Bloomberg .
On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $ 20 and $ 40 per thousand viewers .
Online viewers have to actively seek out the program they want to watch , so advertisers end up with a guaranteed audience for their commercial every time someone clicks play on Hulu or TV.com .
Online programs also have an average of 37 seconds of commercials during an episode , while prime-time TV averages nine minutes of ads .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N!NJA writes with this excerpt from PCWorld:
"A tectonic shift has taken place for the digital age: ad rates for popular shows like The Simpsons and CSI are higher online than they are on prime-time TV.
If a company wants to run ads alongside an episode of The Simpsons on Hulu or TV.com, it will cost the advertiser about $60 per thousand viewers, according to Bloomberg.
On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers.
Online viewers have to actively seek out the program they want to watch, so advertisers end up with a guaranteed audience for their commercial every time someone clicks play on Hulu or TV.com.
Online programs also have an average of 37 seconds of commercials during an episode, while prime-time TV averages nine minutes of ads.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490263</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1246024620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also apparently haven't heard about this remarkable invention called a floor, that allows me to get up and go get a drink when a commercial comes up on TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also apparently have n't heard about this remarkable invention called a floor , that allows me to get up and go get a drink when a commercial comes up on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also apparently haven't heard about this remarkable invention called a floor, that allows me to get up and go get a drink when a commercial comes up on TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1246019400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing because you see the ad sitting there for the entire show. Of course it's more expensive. <br> <br>
Still, keep in mind that you have <i>many</i> more viewers on TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing because you see the ad sitting there for the entire show .
Of course it 's more expensive .
Still , keep in mind that you have many more viewers on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing because you see the ad sitting there for the entire show.
Of course it's more expensive.
Still, keep in mind that you have many more viewers on TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490599</id>
	<title>Go Comskip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SageTV + Comskip + record everything = zero commercials and 1 button skip.  Can't beat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SageTV + Comskip + record everything = zero commercials and 1 button skip .
Ca n't beat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SageTV + Comskip + record everything = zero commercials and 1 button skip.
Can't beat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492121</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't ever think ever think they can't take the internet away from you. You should support and defend it because at some point I'm sure we will all have to make the decision that information should be free to everyone and not controlled by the few. Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ever think ever think they ca n't take the internet away from you .
You should support and defend it because at some point I 'm sure we will all have to make the decision that information should be free to everyone and not controlled by the few .
Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ever think ever think they can't take the internet away from you.
You should support and defend it because at some point I'm sure we will all have to make the decision that information should be free to everyone and not controlled by the few.
Think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496075</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1246129260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dumbest design is ABC's playback of their shows. At the end of the commercial break, it pauses and waits for you to click "Continue" to get back to the show. So it basically does two things<br>1. makes me get up off the couch to click a mouse button to keep playing<br>2. alternatively, enables me to leave the room and not worry about missing some of the show right after the commercials; I can walk away and completely ignore the commercials and when I come back it's waiting for me to resume the show.</p><p>At least on NBC, it doesn't wait for a click, so if I want to catch all of the episode, I have to at least be aware of when the commercials are ending and the show is starting. This forces at least a nominal amount of attention to be paid to the commercials.</p><p>Sheer ineptitude on ABC's part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dumbest design is ABC 's playback of their shows .
At the end of the commercial break , it pauses and waits for you to click " Continue " to get back to the show .
So it basically does two things1 .
makes me get up off the couch to click a mouse button to keep playing2 .
alternatively , enables me to leave the room and not worry about missing some of the show right after the commercials ; I can walk away and completely ignore the commercials and when I come back it 's waiting for me to resume the show.At least on NBC , it does n't wait for a click , so if I want to catch all of the episode , I have to at least be aware of when the commercials are ending and the show is starting .
This forces at least a nominal amount of attention to be paid to the commercials.Sheer ineptitude on ABC 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dumbest design is ABC's playback of their shows.
At the end of the commercial break, it pauses and waits for you to click "Continue" to get back to the show.
So it basically does two things1.
makes me get up off the couch to click a mouse button to keep playing2.
alternatively, enables me to leave the room and not worry about missing some of the show right after the commercials; I can walk away and completely ignore the commercials and when I come back it's waiting for me to resume the show.At least on NBC, it doesn't wait for a click, so if I want to catch all of the episode, I have to at least be aware of when the commercials are ending and the show is starting.
This forces at least a nominal amount of attention to be paid to the commercials.Sheer ineptitude on ABC's part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490383</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, short "viral" videos are what people want to see.  Everyday I'm actually a little sad that I haven't seen another: Exploding whale, cat chasing a bear, monkey falling out of a tree, BLEVE, type video.  And it has nothing to do with age.  Once you get used to getting your media like this you'll have no choice but to get your media like this.  I can't stand watching shows on TV where ads geared to some other obvious demographic than mine are being played (thank you and no offense, I'm not a soccer mom, I don't need to know which SUV was judged safest in it's class or what brand of peanut butter all the kids in the neighborhood are craving).</p><p>Perfect example:  Parkour videos.  Parkour is a french freestyle running that's amazing to watch cause it's so acrobatic.  But at the same time Parkour has been used in extensive marketing campaigns.  Several times I've watched a parkour video only to find out at the end that I was watching an ad.  Do I care?!?  Hell to the no.  I still saw a badass parkour video, I could care less whether puma wants to slap there name on it or not.  It's a much better business model.  That's why traditional media are failing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , short " viral " videos are what people want to see .
Everyday I 'm actually a little sad that I have n't seen another : Exploding whale , cat chasing a bear , monkey falling out of a tree , BLEVE , type video .
And it has nothing to do with age .
Once you get used to getting your media like this you 'll have no choice but to get your media like this .
I ca n't stand watching shows on TV where ads geared to some other obvious demographic than mine are being played ( thank you and no offense , I 'm not a soccer mom , I do n't need to know which SUV was judged safest in it 's class or what brand of peanut butter all the kids in the neighborhood are craving ) .Perfect example : Parkour videos .
Parkour is a french freestyle running that 's amazing to watch cause it 's so acrobatic .
But at the same time Parkour has been used in extensive marketing campaigns .
Several times I 've watched a parkour video only to find out at the end that I was watching an ad .
Do I care ? ! ?
Hell to the no .
I still saw a badass parkour video , I could care less whether puma wants to slap there name on it or not .
It 's a much better business model .
That 's why traditional media are failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, short "viral" videos are what people want to see.
Everyday I'm actually a little sad that I haven't seen another: Exploding whale, cat chasing a bear, monkey falling out of a tree, BLEVE, type video.
And it has nothing to do with age.
Once you get used to getting your media like this you'll have no choice but to get your media like this.
I can't stand watching shows on TV where ads geared to some other obvious demographic than mine are being played (thank you and no offense, I'm not a soccer mom, I don't need to know which SUV was judged safest in it's class or what brand of peanut butter all the kids in the neighborhood are craving).Perfect example:  Parkour videos.
Parkour is a french freestyle running that's amazing to watch cause it's so acrobatic.
But at the same time Parkour has been used in extensive marketing campaigns.
Several times I've watched a parkour video only to find out at the end that I was watching an ad.
Do I care?!?
Hell to the no.
I still saw a badass parkour video, I could care less whether puma wants to slap there name on it or not.
It's a much better business model.
That's why traditional media are failing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490735</id>
	<title>Re:So how about dropping the block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write a lot of letters (using different names and addresses) or make some friends (cloning and GHB) and make sure your local advertisers know you're interested in Hulu.</p><p>Try to get several local businesses (preferably Canada or UK first) to work out a deal with Hulu, so that Hulu will profit from allowing your block of IP addresses access it.</p><p>PS, regional distribution rights will prevent this and your plan from working, so if you really wanted to accomplish this, you'll have to convince your local broadcaster to relinquish the exclusive rights to broadcast the shows on Hulu.</p><p>Maybe this can begin on a case-by-case/show-by-show basis where only certain shows from Hulu are available for the trial regions.</p><p>
-R Seacrest</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write a lot of letters ( using different names and addresses ) or make some friends ( cloning and GHB ) and make sure your local advertisers know you 're interested in Hulu.Try to get several local businesses ( preferably Canada or UK first ) to work out a deal with Hulu , so that Hulu will profit from allowing your block of IP addresses access it.PS , regional distribution rights will prevent this and your plan from working , so if you really wanted to accomplish this , you 'll have to convince your local broadcaster to relinquish the exclusive rights to broadcast the shows on Hulu.Maybe this can begin on a case-by-case/show-by-show basis where only certain shows from Hulu are available for the trial regions .
-R Seacrest</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write a lot of letters (using different names and addresses) or make some friends (cloning and GHB) and make sure your local advertisers know you're interested in Hulu.Try to get several local businesses (preferably Canada or UK first) to work out a deal with Hulu, so that Hulu will profit from allowing your block of IP addresses access it.PS, regional distribution rights will prevent this and your plan from working, so if you really wanted to accomplish this, you'll have to convince your local broadcaster to relinquish the exclusive rights to broadcast the shows on Hulu.Maybe this can begin on a case-by-case/show-by-show basis where only certain shows from Hulu are available for the trial regions.
-R Seacrest</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490137</id>
	<title>Ad rates? The real tectonic shift comes when</title>
	<author>endall</author>
	<datestamp>1246023240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real tectonic shift comes when the online episode make more money overall than the prime time TV showing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real tectonic shift comes when the online episode make more money overall than the prime time TV showing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real tectonic shift comes when the online episode make more money overall than the prime time TV showing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489813</id>
	<title>Nooooo!</title>
	<author>xx01dk</author>
	<datestamp>1246020060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This does not need to be made public. I love only having to sit through 25-30 seconds of commercials verses 2-3 minutes for each break. This is what drove me to Hulu in the first place, but I can't fault them for wanting to make more money. I just knew it was too good to be true for as long as it has been--soon it will be just like watching regular TV, and then I'll be back to torrenting the shows I like \_sans\_ commercials. Meh!

Remember these halcyon days. I know I will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not need to be made public .
I love only having to sit through 25-30 seconds of commercials verses 2-3 minutes for each break .
This is what drove me to Hulu in the first place , but I ca n't fault them for wanting to make more money .
I just knew it was too good to be true for as long as it has been--soon it will be just like watching regular TV , and then I 'll be back to torrenting the shows I like \ _sans \ _ commercials .
Meh ! Remember these halcyon days .
I know I will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not need to be made public.
I love only having to sit through 25-30 seconds of commercials verses 2-3 minutes for each break.
This is what drove me to Hulu in the first place, but I can't fault them for wanting to make more money.
I just knew it was too good to be true for as long as it has been--soon it will be just like watching regular TV, and then I'll be back to torrenting the shows I like \_sans\_ commercials.
Meh!

Remember these halcyon days.
I know I will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489749</id>
	<title>one slight  catch to the math there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also need to consider that you have to buy last years viewers this year when figuring out your $$$ per 1000 rate on television.  Hulu should be like google and you can buy 10,000 views of your ad instead of being forced to buy the entire market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also need to consider that you have to buy last years viewers this year when figuring out your $ $ $ per 1000 rate on television .
Hulu should be like google and you can buy 10,000 views of your ad instead of being forced to buy the entire market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also need to consider that you have to buy last years viewers this year when figuring out your $$$ per 1000 rate on television.
Hulu should be like google and you can buy 10,000 views of your ad instead of being forced to buy the entire market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490457</id>
	<title>Re:The right demographic.</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246026300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I can watch Hulu (or any streaming video for that matter) in ~30 seconds. On the other hand, even on a decent connection it might take 30 minutes or more to successfully torrent a show (especially one with few seeders or one with all the episodes bundled together). There are times that I have a few minutes to kill and want to watch a show so I usually put on YouTube or Hulu rather than have to wait for my torrent to complete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I can watch Hulu ( or any streaming video for that matter ) in ~ 30 seconds .
On the other hand , even on a decent connection it might take 30 minutes or more to successfully torrent a show ( especially one with few seeders or one with all the episodes bundled together ) .
There are times that I have a few minutes to kill and want to watch a show so I usually put on YouTube or Hulu rather than have to wait for my torrent to complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I can watch Hulu (or any streaming video for that matter) in ~30 seconds.
On the other hand, even on a decent connection it might take 30 minutes or more to successfully torrent a show (especially one with few seeders or one with all the episodes bundled together).
There are times that I have a few minutes to kill and want to watch a show so I usually put on YouTube or Hulu rather than have to wait for my torrent to complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490163</id>
	<title>Re:Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246023480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else Hulu has going for it is the lack of a set schedule.</p><p>Older prime time shows get MUTILATED in syndication. This was moderately<br>bad in the 80's but it has gotten even worse as TV has become less well<br>regulated. Now some older shows are unrecognizable.</p><p>Sci-Fi Channel did one or two runs of StarTrek "uncut" before they went<br>back to the usual "syndication edit". With Hulu, you can see any show<br>you want intact (assuming the studio cooperates).</p><p>The only other way to get that is to buy the DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else Hulu has going for it is the lack of a set schedule.Older prime time shows get MUTILATED in syndication .
This was moderatelybad in the 80 's but it has gotten even worse as TV has become less wellregulated .
Now some older shows are unrecognizable.Sci-Fi Channel did one or two runs of StarTrek " uncut " before they wentback to the usual " syndication edit " .
With Hulu , you can see any showyou want intact ( assuming the studio cooperates ) .The only other way to get that is to buy the DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else Hulu has going for it is the lack of a set schedule.Older prime time shows get MUTILATED in syndication.
This was moderatelybad in the 80's but it has gotten even worse as TV has become less wellregulated.
Now some older shows are unrecognizable.Sci-Fi Channel did one or two runs of StarTrek "uncut" before they wentback to the usual "syndication edit".
With Hulu, you can see any showyou want intact (assuming the studio cooperates).The only other way to get that is to buy the DVDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28515367</id>
	<title>Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?</title>
	<author>ShawnDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1246296480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not just Boxee, they've started blocking the PS3 as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not just Boxee , they 've started blocking the PS3 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not just Boxee, they've started blocking the PS3 as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490883</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1246031340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit. And I thought I had a tendency to over-complicate things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit .
And I thought I had a tendency to over-complicate things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit.
And I thought I had a tendency to over-complicate things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492753</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Jarik\_Tentsu</author>
	<datestamp>1246093560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was talking to someone who doesn't even have a TV in their house. They moved house 6 months ago, and just haven't bothered installing one yet. They just use the computer to watch their TV shows and movies (and not illegally either. They use the pay-per-download ones).</p><p>~Jarik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was talking to someone who does n't even have a TV in their house .
They moved house 6 months ago , and just have n't bothered installing one yet .
They just use the computer to watch their TV shows and movies ( and not illegally either .
They use the pay-per-download ones ) . ~ Jarik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was talking to someone who doesn't even have a TV in their house.
They moved house 6 months ago, and just haven't bothered installing one yet.
They just use the computer to watch their TV shows and movies (and not illegally either.
They use the pay-per-download ones).~Jarik</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705</id>
	<title>The right demographic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also guarantees that the users seeing the ads are foolish types and likely to spend money.  If they had any clue they'd be watching it ad-free through The Pirate Bay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also guarantees that the users seeing the ads are foolish types and likely to spend money .
If they had any clue they 'd be watching it ad-free through The Pirate Bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also guarantees that the users seeing the ads are foolish types and likely to spend money.
If they had any clue they'd be watching it ad-free through The Pirate Bay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28493975</id>
	<title>My friend who worked there since the beta...</title>
	<author>TiberSeptm</author>
	<datestamp>1246110360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Had explained to me that this expectation - that Hulu advertisements would eventually prove to be more valuable than on-air advertising - was how the company planned on becoming profitable.  The justifications he gave were-<ul>
<li>1) Hulu ads are not skippable so the fear that a percentage of viewers will skip them as they do on DVRs is not there so much.</li><li>2)Their ads can be somewhat interactive; you can click through directly to the advertiser's site.</li><li>3) Hulu commercial breaks are not long enough for the viewer to treat them as some sort of actual break in which to check their email, go to the bathroom, or grab a bite to eat.  While users can simply do these things and then rewind, Hulu's own experience has found that most don't.</li><li>4)As an explanation of #3 - they can gather general statistics on user behavior with respects to their videos and ads.  They know that the vast majority of users do not get up during commercials, come back after them, and rewind because they can see that few people are rewinding after commercial breaks.</li><li>5)While they do not sell personal information, they do gather broad statistics on viewers in general as well as some specifics about registers users.  This allows advertisers to gauge how many people within specific demographics not only will see their ad, but how many actually responded to it.  this lets advertisers gauge rather quickly how accurate any targetting was.  They also get feedback from users giving thumbs up or thumbs down to certain ads.  This allows advertisers to see fairly quickly if they accidently created an ad that inspires hate rather than shopping.</li></ul><p>
Anyways, these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time*viewers over the air.  It came up when we were complaining about the studios' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date.  While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates, we still grumbled a bit about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had explained to me that this expectation - that Hulu advertisements would eventually prove to be more valuable than on-air advertising - was how the company planned on becoming profitable .
The justifications he gave were- 1 ) Hulu ads are not skippable so the fear that a percentage of viewers will skip them as they do on DVRs is not there so much.2 ) Their ads can be somewhat interactive ; you can click through directly to the advertiser 's site.3 ) Hulu commercial breaks are not long enough for the viewer to treat them as some sort of actual break in which to check their email , go to the bathroom , or grab a bite to eat .
While users can simply do these things and then rewind , Hulu 's own experience has found that most do n't.4 ) As an explanation of # 3 - they can gather general statistics on user behavior with respects to their videos and ads .
They know that the vast majority of users do not get up during commercials , come back after them , and rewind because they can see that few people are rewinding after commercial breaks.5 ) While they do not sell personal information , they do gather broad statistics on viewers in general as well as some specifics about registers users .
This allows advertisers to gauge how many people within specific demographics not only will see their ad , but how many actually responded to it .
this lets advertisers gauge rather quickly how accurate any targetting was .
They also get feedback from users giving thumbs up or thumbs down to certain ads .
This allows advertisers to see fairly quickly if they accidently created an ad that inspires hate rather than shopping .
Anyways , these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time * viewers over the air .
It came up when we were complaining about the studios ' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date .
While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates , we still grumbled a bit about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had explained to me that this expectation - that Hulu advertisements would eventually prove to be more valuable than on-air advertising - was how the company planned on becoming profitable.
The justifications he gave were-
1) Hulu ads are not skippable so the fear that a percentage of viewers will skip them as they do on DVRs is not there so much.2)Their ads can be somewhat interactive; you can click through directly to the advertiser's site.3) Hulu commercial breaks are not long enough for the viewer to treat them as some sort of actual break in which to check their email, go to the bathroom, or grab a bite to eat.
While users can simply do these things and then rewind, Hulu's own experience has found that most don't.4)As an explanation of #3 - they can gather general statistics on user behavior with respects to their videos and ads.
They know that the vast majority of users do not get up during commercials, come back after them, and rewind because they can see that few people are rewinding after commercial breaks.5)While they do not sell personal information, they do gather broad statistics on viewers in general as well as some specifics about registers users.
This allows advertisers to gauge how many people within specific demographics not only will see their ad, but how many actually responded to it.
this lets advertisers gauge rather quickly how accurate any targetting was.
They also get feedback from users giving thumbs up or thumbs down to certain ads.
This allows advertisers to see fairly quickly if they accidently created an ad that inspires hate rather than shopping.
Anyways, these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time*viewers over the air.
It came up when we were complaining about the studios' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date.
While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates, we still grumbled a bit about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491913</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>GuldKalle</author>
	<datestamp>1246040880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worth to advertisers is still greater for Hulu than for Fox. Value is a lot of things to a lot of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worth to advertisers is still greater for Hulu than for Fox .
Value is a lot of things to a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worth to advertisers is still greater for Hulu than for Fox.
Value is a lot of things to a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494157</id>
	<title>Here's the math:</title>
	<author>Saysys</author>
	<datestamp>1246112520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At $60 vs $30 the studio breaks even.<br> <br>
The quote in the summery is wrong, i just checked: there are 3 commercials 15-30 seconds each. This comes out to between 45 seconds and 1:30 of advertising; there are 8:30 in commercials for the regular broadcast.
<br> <br>
On a recent episode of the Simpsons local adds took up about five of the adds. This means that in order to break even, supposing the internet draws away customers on a one-for-two basis(more tv can be watched), the studio must charge two times as much.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At $ 60 vs $ 30 the studio breaks even .
The quote in the summery is wrong , i just checked : there are 3 commercials 15-30 seconds each .
This comes out to between 45 seconds and 1 : 30 of advertising ; there are 8 : 30 in commercials for the regular broadcast .
On a recent episode of the Simpsons local adds took up about five of the adds .
This means that in order to break even , supposing the internet draws away customers on a one-for-two basis ( more tv can be watched ) , the studio must charge two times as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At $60 vs $30 the studio breaks even.
The quote in the summery is wrong, i just checked: there are 3 commercials 15-30 seconds each.
This comes out to between 45 seconds and 1:30 of advertising; there are 8:30 in commercials for the regular broadcast.
On a recent episode of the Simpsons local adds took up about five of the adds.
This means that in order to break even, supposing the internet draws away customers on a one-for-two basis(more tv can be watched), the studio must charge two times as much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673</id>
	<title>Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246019100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use Hulu but I'm guessing it's because you can pick which episode you want on Hulu but not TV.  I would watch the PTA is disbanding episode 50 times if I wans't soooo wasted to ytpe rightnow .</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Hulu but I 'm guessing it 's because you can pick which episode you want on Hulu but not TV .
I would watch the PTA is disbanding episode 50 times if I wans't soooo wasted to ytpe rightnow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Hulu but I'm guessing it's because you can pick which episode you want on Hulu but not TV.
I would watch the PTA is disbanding episode 50 times if I wans't soooo wasted to ytpe rightnow .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492579</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ya know, if you click on the ad it pops open the target site in a new window/tab, and pauses the ad..</p><p>the catch is, though, when the ad is done after you resume it, the actual program is *also* paused...  heh. i use this for my fridge runs, because (ssshhh!) the ads are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:eek: too short sometimes.</p><p>you might be able to work that in there, as you wouldn't have to keep an eye on each window/tab you've got the ads playing in to pause them when they're done... they'll pause on their own.</p><p>this is in exchange, of course, for you clicking on the ads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:shock: but then hulu gets any clickthru revenue, so that's not a bad thing. if hulu makes some scratch, they won't have to shut down or revert to a viewer-pays subscription model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ya know , if you click on the ad it pops open the target site in a new window/tab , and pauses the ad..the catch is , though , when the ad is done after you resume it , the actual program is * also * paused... heh. i use this for my fridge runs , because ( ssshhh !
) the ads are : eek : too short sometimes.you might be able to work that in there , as you would n't have to keep an eye on each window/tab you 've got the ads playing in to pause them when they 're done... they 'll pause on their own.this is in exchange , of course , for you clicking on the ads : shock : but then hulu gets any clickthru revenue , so that 's not a bad thing .
if hulu makes some scratch , they wo n't have to shut down or revert to a viewer-pays subscription model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ya know, if you click on the ad it pops open the target site in a new window/tab, and pauses the ad..the catch is, though, when the ad is done after you resume it, the actual program is *also* paused...  heh. i use this for my fridge runs, because (ssshhh!
) the ads are :eek: too short sometimes.you might be able to work that in there, as you wouldn't have to keep an eye on each window/tab you've got the ads playing in to pause them when they're done... they'll pause on their own.this is in exchange, of course, for you clicking on the ads :shock: but then hulu gets any clickthru revenue, so that's not a bad thing.
if hulu makes some scratch, they won't have to shut down or revert to a viewer-pays subscription model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490661</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1246028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They cut in at about the same places too.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is something Hulu needs to work on, actually.  For shows like the Simpsons or House, which are highly popular, the commercials are always spot on.  For less popular shows, such as some of the oddities like Paranormal TV, cooking, and anime, the commercials can cut in at the worst times.  Sometimes you get lucky and they're only +/-second from where they should be, but I've had the occasional show where they cut in during the middle of an action scene.  In many instances they seem to ignore the pre-created spots for commercials, with obviously fade-to-black and scene transitions, in favor of whatever random place they like.</p><p>That said, I enjoy Hulu greatly; I'm using their Desktop program right now, and am also developing a Firefox add-on for organizing the queue (something useful for those like me, with 300+ entries).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They cut in at about the same places too.This is something Hulu needs to work on , actually .
For shows like the Simpsons or House , which are highly popular , the commercials are always spot on .
For less popular shows , such as some of the oddities like Paranormal TV , cooking , and anime , the commercials can cut in at the worst times .
Sometimes you get lucky and they 're only + /-second from where they should be , but I 've had the occasional show where they cut in during the middle of an action scene .
In many instances they seem to ignore the pre-created spots for commercials , with obviously fade-to-black and scene transitions , in favor of whatever random place they like.That said , I enjoy Hulu greatly ; I 'm using their Desktop program right now , and am also developing a Firefox add-on for organizing the queue ( something useful for those like me , with 300 + entries ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They cut in at about the same places too.This is something Hulu needs to work on, actually.
For shows like the Simpsons or House, which are highly popular, the commercials are always spot on.
For less popular shows, such as some of the oddities like Paranormal TV, cooking, and anime, the commercials can cut in at the worst times.
Sometimes you get lucky and they're only +/-second from where they should be, but I've had the occasional show where they cut in during the middle of an action scene.
In many instances they seem to ignore the pre-created spots for commercials, with obviously fade-to-black and scene transitions, in favor of whatever random place they like.That said, I enjoy Hulu greatly; I'm using their Desktop program right now, and am also developing a Firefox add-on for organizing the queue (something useful for those like me, with 300+ entries).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246021080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to open up multiple tabs of the same video, and preemptively skip to each commercial (just click the dots).</p><p>Let each commercial play, then pause the video in each tab.</p><p>Open video, as commercial plays, open same video in new tab, skip to second commercial, open video in new tab, skip to third, etc. for all commercials.</p><p>Go to first tab and pause, second tab pause, etc.<br>Go to first tab, play.</p><p>Can do all that in the time it takes for the first commercial (before the video starts) to finish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to open up multiple tabs of the same video , and preemptively skip to each commercial ( just click the dots ) .Let each commercial play , then pause the video in each tab.Open video , as commercial plays , open same video in new tab , skip to second commercial , open video in new tab , skip to third , etc .
for all commercials.Go to first tab and pause , second tab pause , etc.Go to first tab , play.Can do all that in the time it takes for the first commercial ( before the video starts ) to finish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to open up multiple tabs of the same video, and preemptively skip to each commercial (just click the dots).Let each commercial play, then pause the video in each tab.Open video, as commercial plays, open same video in new tab, skip to second commercial, open video in new tab, skip to third, etc.
for all commercials.Go to first tab and pause, second tab pause, etc.Go to first tab, play.Can do all that in the time it takes for the first commercial (before the video starts) to finish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490159</id>
	<title>A guaranteed audience?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have they never heard of AdBlock plus, and his fiends?</p><p>Yes, they filter TV stream too! (His friends are better at this than he is though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they never heard of AdBlock plus , and his fiends ? Yes , they filter TV stream too !
( His friends are better at this than he is though .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they never heard of AdBlock plus, and his fiends?Yes, they filter TV stream too!
(His friends are better at this than he is though.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490281</id>
	<title>Too many commercials</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246024740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope that TV execs learn the lesson that they've got too many commercials in their shows.  I remember when commercial breaks on my shows (as a kid) were 2 minutes or 4 X 30 second spots).  Now, I'm actually deterred from watching TV.  I'm a huge football fan and I'd watch every possible game I could (in the pre-Tivo days).  Now, I only follow my favorite team as the annoyance of commercials overcomes my casual interest in other teams.  Monday Night Football IMO died because they inserted so many commercial breaks that, beyond their normal annoyance, they started to interrupt the continuity of games and even omit game coverage like kick-offs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that TV execs learn the lesson that they 've got too many commercials in their shows .
I remember when commercial breaks on my shows ( as a kid ) were 2 minutes or 4 X 30 second spots ) .
Now , I 'm actually deterred from watching TV .
I 'm a huge football fan and I 'd watch every possible game I could ( in the pre-Tivo days ) .
Now , I only follow my favorite team as the annoyance of commercials overcomes my casual interest in other teams .
Monday Night Football IMO died because they inserted so many commercial breaks that , beyond their normal annoyance , they started to interrupt the continuity of games and even omit game coverage like kick-offs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that TV execs learn the lesson that they've got too many commercials in their shows.
I remember when commercial breaks on my shows (as a kid) were 2 minutes or 4 X 30 second spots).
Now, I'm actually deterred from watching TV.
I'm a huge football fan and I'd watch every possible game I could (in the pre-Tivo days).
Now, I only follow my favorite team as the annoyance of commercials overcomes my casual interest in other teams.
Monday Night Football IMO died because they inserted so many commercial breaks that, beyond their normal annoyance, they started to interrupt the continuity of games and even omit game coverage like kick-offs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496647</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until you find yourself watching a commercial for radiation therapy and start thinking, "I don't have cancer!"</p><p>But you do.</p><p>And the advertisers are there for you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:hugs:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you find yourself watching a commercial for radiation therapy and start thinking , " I do n't have cancer !
" But you do.And the advertisers are there for you .
: hugs :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you find yourself watching a commercial for radiation therapy and start thinking, "I don't have cancer!
"But you do.And the advertisers are there for you.
:hugs:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489929</id>
	<title>Less is more.</title>
	<author>greatica</author>
	<datestamp>1246021020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2 to 5 minute ad breaks = I walk to the kitchen to make a snack, or record and watch later to fast forward through junk.

30 second ad breaks = Not a big deal.  I chill out and take in the advertisements.

Same thing with internet banner ads.  I didn't look for an ad blocker until people got greedy and littered their sites with junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 to 5 minute ad breaks = I walk to the kitchen to make a snack , or record and watch later to fast forward through junk .
30 second ad breaks = Not a big deal .
I chill out and take in the advertisements .
Same thing with internet banner ads .
I did n't look for an ad blocker until people got greedy and littered their sites with junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 to 5 minute ad breaks = I walk to the kitchen to make a snack, or record and watch later to fast forward through junk.
30 second ad breaks = Not a big deal.
I chill out and take in the advertisements.
Same thing with internet banner ads.
I didn't look for an ad blocker until people got greedy and littered their sites with junk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492129</id>
	<title>Can't do math?</title>
	<author>bagsc</author>
	<datestamp>1246042980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>60*37  20*9*60<br>Primetime is still more valuable.  Fewer commercials means more expensive commercials - that has been long established.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>60 * 37 20 * 9 * 60Primetime is still more valuable .
Fewer commercials means more expensive commercials - that has been long established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60*37  20*9*60Primetime is still more valuable.
Fewer commercials means more expensive commercials - that has been long established.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733</id>
	<title>Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>TejWC</author>
	<datestamp>1246019520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not a good idea to compare watching commercials on TV vs. Hulu. One major difference that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there is only one commercial between segments of shows on Hulu; while on TV there are multiple. Its easier to "remember" the commercials after only seeing one rather than multiple but at the same time the overall revenue that the episode gets per viewer would probably be much less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a good idea to compare watching commercials on TV vs. Hulu. One major difference that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there is only one commercial between segments of shows on Hulu ; while on TV there are multiple .
Its easier to " remember " the commercials after only seeing one rather than multiple but at the same time the overall revenue that the episode gets per viewer would probably be much less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a good idea to compare watching commercials on TV vs. Hulu. One major difference that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there is only one commercial between segments of shows on Hulu; while on TV there are multiple.
Its easier to "remember" the commercials after only seeing one rather than multiple but at the same time the overall revenue that the episode gets per viewer would probably be much less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490149</id>
	<title>Cost Per impression all over again...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1246023360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Online viewers have to actively seek out the<br>&gt; program they want to watch, so advertisers end up &gt; with a guaranteed audience for their commercial</p><p>This is a pretty flaky argument if you ask me.</p><p>People have to actively seek out a program to watch on TV as well.  On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing.</p><p>But unlike TV, where an advertisement in a lame program usually drives me away to a different channel, never to return, on the web, I just launch another browser, kill the sound, and skip the commercials (mentally if not actually).  People who have a computer and know how to use it well enough to find hulu are not dumb enough to watch some crazy commercial.</p><p>If anything, the channel surfers do not stumble upon HULU content, like they might while avoiding commercials on the TV.</p><p>Its a good price to ding the advertisers if you can get it, but it has to translate into sales or it is a waste.</p><p>On line ads used to be sold on a cost per impression basis.  Advertisers woke up to that scam, and the current scam is cost per click.<br>(Advertisers are waking up to that scam too.)</p><p>I seriously doubt you will long be able to demand enhanced revenue based on cost per impression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Online viewers have to actively seek out the &gt; program they want to watch , so advertisers end up &gt; with a guaranteed audience for their commercialThis is a pretty flaky argument if you ask me.People have to actively seek out a program to watch on TV as well .
On TV , this is known as applying rule of the " least horsehit " while channel surfing.But unlike TV , where an advertisement in a lame program usually drives me away to a different channel , never to return , on the web , I just launch another browser , kill the sound , and skip the commercials ( mentally if not actually ) .
People who have a computer and know how to use it well enough to find hulu are not dumb enough to watch some crazy commercial.If anything , the channel surfers do not stumble upon HULU content , like they might while avoiding commercials on the TV.Its a good price to ding the advertisers if you can get it , but it has to translate into sales or it is a waste.On line ads used to be sold on a cost per impression basis .
Advertisers woke up to that scam , and the current scam is cost per click .
( Advertisers are waking up to that scam too .
) I seriously doubt you will long be able to demand enhanced revenue based on cost per impression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Online viewers have to actively seek out the&gt; program they want to watch, so advertisers end up &gt; with a guaranteed audience for their commercialThis is a pretty flaky argument if you ask me.People have to actively seek out a program to watch on TV as well.
On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing.But unlike TV, where an advertisement in a lame program usually drives me away to a different channel, never to return, on the web, I just launch another browser, kill the sound, and skip the commercials (mentally if not actually).
People who have a computer and know how to use it well enough to find hulu are not dumb enough to watch some crazy commercial.If anything, the channel surfers do not stumble upon HULU content, like they might while avoiding commercials on the TV.Its a good price to ding the advertisers if you can get it, but it has to translate into sales or it is a waste.On line ads used to be sold on a cost per impression basis.
Advertisers woke up to that scam, and the current scam is cost per click.
(Advertisers are waking up to that scam too.
)I seriously doubt you will long be able to demand enhanced revenue based on cost per impression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489811</id>
	<title>Hmmm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246020060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And TV Execs wonder why their ad revenue is going down...</p><p>Only 37seconds per show? yes please...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And TV Execs wonder why their ad revenue is going down...Only 37seconds per show ?
yes please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And TV Execs wonder why their ad revenue is going down...Only 37seconds per show?
yes please...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</id>
	<title>Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>William Ager</author>
	<datestamp>1246019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the advertisers haven't heard about window managers and multitasking operating systems... especially since Hulu goes so far as to tell the viewer how long the commercial will be.</p><p>Then again, since Hulu commercial breaks are so short compared to those on television, there is far less of an incentive to do something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the advertisers have n't heard about window managers and multitasking operating systems... especially since Hulu goes so far as to tell the viewer how long the commercial will be.Then again , since Hulu commercial breaks are so short compared to those on television , there is far less of an incentive to do something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the advertisers haven't heard about window managers and multitasking operating systems... especially since Hulu goes so far as to tell the viewer how long the commercial will be.Then again, since Hulu commercial breaks are so short compared to those on television, there is far less of an incentive to do something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491257</id>
	<title>USA Only</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246036260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?</p><p>The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it. (even though it was on release.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please add an " American flag " icon to this and all discussions about Hulu ? The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it .
( even though it was on release .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it.
(even though it was on release.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489957</id>
	<title>Rahter misleading.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246021260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, different markets net different prices for services.
<p>
Saying it's worth more per viewer is like saying hard liquor is "worth more" when you buy it at a bar.    You're selling to two different audiences, and a much smaller amount.  The Simpsons on hulu might get tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers; whereas the Simpsons on Fox will get millions.  Comparing the price for advertising on the two is telling about 1/3rd of the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , different markets net different prices for services .
Saying it 's worth more per viewer is like saying hard liquor is " worth more " when you buy it at a bar .
You 're selling to two different audiences , and a much smaller amount .
The Simpsons on hulu might get tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers ; whereas the Simpsons on Fox will get millions .
Comparing the price for advertising on the two is telling about 1/3rd of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, different markets net different prices for services.
Saying it's worth more per viewer is like saying hard liquor is "worth more" when you buy it at a bar.
You're selling to two different audiences, and a much smaller amount.
The Simpsons on hulu might get tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers; whereas the Simpsons on Fox will get millions.
Comparing the price for advertising on the two is telling about 1/3rd of the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695</id>
	<title>WTF Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to question the vast wisdom of Slashdot.org, but the news that's been posted is getting closer and closer to what I'd find on Digg or Fark. I'm not saying I don't enjoy Digg or Fark, but I visit slashdot so that I don't have to see the same thing on every website I go to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to question the vast wisdom of Slashdot.org , but the news that 's been posted is getting closer and closer to what I 'd find on Digg or Fark .
I 'm not saying I do n't enjoy Digg or Fark , but I visit slashdot so that I do n't have to see the same thing on every website I go to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to question the vast wisdom of Slashdot.org, but the news that's been posted is getting closer and closer to what I'd find on Digg or Fark.
I'm not saying I don't enjoy Digg or Fark, but I visit slashdot so that I don't have to see the same thing on every website I go to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753</id>
	<title>Average Total Cost Per Ad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know the numbers of how many viewers the average new episode of The Simpsons gets on both mediums?  While it is interesting that the cost per viewer is significantly more online, I doubt the number of viewers on Hulu is within the same order of magnitude compared to how many people view a new episode on standard television.  Also I still find it crazy that they're actively fighting Boxee when that only adds more viewers.  It would be one thing if Boxee blocked the ads, but it's definitely not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know the numbers of how many viewers the average new episode of The Simpsons gets on both mediums ?
While it is interesting that the cost per viewer is significantly more online , I doubt the number of viewers on Hulu is within the same order of magnitude compared to how many people view a new episode on standard television .
Also I still find it crazy that they 're actively fighting Boxee when that only adds more viewers .
It would be one thing if Boxee blocked the ads , but it 's definitely not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know the numbers of how many viewers the average new episode of The Simpsons gets on both mediums?
While it is interesting that the cost per viewer is significantly more online, I doubt the number of viewers on Hulu is within the same order of magnitude compared to how many people view a new episode on standard television.
Also I still find it crazy that they're actively fighting Boxee when that only adds more viewers.
It would be one thing if Boxee blocked the ads, but it's definitely not the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28493309</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1246100340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child! In her first sexual experience, she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile, spotty teenage boy!</p><p>No, but seriously, the issue is more complicated than that. The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents. If they're more conservative on such issues, and react negatively, then it will affect them negatively.</p><p>Some would blame the parents for this, but I don't see how this is different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo; when they do, and the parents react, we don't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child !
In her first sexual experience , she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile , spotty teenage boy ! No , but seriously , the issue is more complicated than that .
The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents .
If they 're more conservative on such issues , and react negatively , then it will affect them negatively.Some would blame the parents for this , but I do n't see how this is different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo ; when they do , and the parents react , we do n't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child!
In her first sexual experience, she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile, spotty teenage boy!No, but seriously, the issue is more complicated than that.
The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents.
If they're more conservative on such issues, and react negatively, then it will affect them negatively.Some would blame the parents for this, but I don't see how this is different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo; when they do, and the parents react, we don't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490871</id>
	<title>Re:So how about dropping the block?</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1246031100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?

How long before someone makes a botnet of open proxies with US IP addresses and inserts their clients' ads in place of Hulu ads?
</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers , what 's the point of blocking non-US users ?
How long before someone makes a botnet of open proxies with US IP addresses and inserts their clients ' ads in place of Hulu ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?
How long before someone makes a botnet of open proxies with US IP addresses and inserts their clients' ads in place of Hulu ads?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491365</id>
	<title>I still watch it on TV via DVR</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1246037100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I feel like a Luddite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I feel like a Luddite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I feel like a Luddite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489843</id>
	<title>This is going to be what killed hulu</title>
	<author>scribblej</author>
	<datestamp>1246020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just started watching Hulu last week.  It's a great service!  There is only one short commercial per break, and I'm willing to tolerate that.   The only thing that would make it better is if they put banner ads around the window and took the commercials out completely.</p><p>But that's not what'll happen.  The company serves its bottom line.  I give it less than six months before they start stuffing commercials into the show, equivalent to broadcast television.  There's already at least one advertisment that cranks the volume up to 11 -- some jamacian shit I'm sure you've probably seen by now.  It instantly pisses me off when the commercial comes up. It's a great reminder about why broadcast television is shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just started watching Hulu last week .
It 's a great service !
There is only one short commercial per break , and I 'm willing to tolerate that .
The only thing that would make it better is if they put banner ads around the window and took the commercials out completely.But that 's not what 'll happen .
The company serves its bottom line .
I give it less than six months before they start stuffing commercials into the show , equivalent to broadcast television .
There 's already at least one advertisment that cranks the volume up to 11 -- some jamacian shit I 'm sure you 've probably seen by now .
It instantly pisses me off when the commercial comes up .
It 's a great reminder about why broadcast television is shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just started watching Hulu last week.
It's a great service!
There is only one short commercial per break, and I'm willing to tolerate that.
The only thing that would make it better is if they put banner ads around the window and took the commercials out completely.But that's not what'll happen.
The company serves its bottom line.
I give it less than six months before they start stuffing commercials into the show, equivalent to broadcast television.
There's already at least one advertisment that cranks the volume up to 11 -- some jamacian shit I'm sure you've probably seen by now.
It instantly pisses me off when the commercial comes up.
It's a great reminder about why broadcast television is shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490605</id>
	<title>Ads on the Internet?  Really?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1246027740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of it this way also. . .</p><p>People who are watching adverts on the internet are more likely to buy the products you tell them to buy because they're not smart or willful enough to sculpt their own environment and thus are more easily duped into believing. . .</p><p>A) That it is their moral obligation to allow advertisers access to their brains.<br>B) That it's too much effort to figure out how to avoid seeing adverts on the web.</p><p>A rube in hand is worth a dozen smart and willful guys in the bush.</p><p>Hallelujah.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of it this way also .
. .People who are watching adverts on the internet are more likely to buy the products you tell them to buy because they 're not smart or willful enough to sculpt their own environment and thus are more easily duped into believing .
. .A ) That it is their moral obligation to allow advertisers access to their brains.B ) That it 's too much effort to figure out how to avoid seeing adverts on the web.A rube in hand is worth a dozen smart and willful guys in the bush.Hallelujah.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of it this way also.
. .People who are watching adverts on the internet are more likely to buy the products you tell them to buy because they're not smart or willful enough to sculpt their own environment and thus are more easily duped into believing.
. .A) That it is their moral obligation to allow advertisers access to their brains.B) That it's too much effort to figure out how to avoid seeing adverts on the web.A rube in hand is worth a dozen smart and willful guys in the bush.Hallelujah.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489923</id>
	<title>That doesn't make any sense</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1246020960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does it cost more for adverts per person during the Simpsons? It could be the case that Hulu is charging more per viewer because those who watch the Simpsons are more receptive to advertisements, but I doubt that. I think that Hulu just uses a poor pricing model for advertisers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it cost more for adverts per person during the Simpsons ?
It could be the case that Hulu is charging more per viewer because those who watch the Simpsons are more receptive to advertisements , but I doubt that .
I think that Hulu just uses a poor pricing model for advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it cost more for adverts per person during the Simpsons?
It could be the case that Hulu is charging more per viewer because those who watch the Simpsons are more receptive to advertisements, but I doubt that.
I think that Hulu just uses a poor pricing model for advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490293</id>
	<title>Sony is missing out big...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1246024920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love Hulu - in fact, Hulu is the only place I watch "television."  House, 24, Bones, Heroes, Family Guy, Simpsons, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report... sure, some shows like House aren't available until 8 days after they air but what do I really miss out on.. a couple days of water cooler chat?  Seriously, I can wait for my fix.  Not to mention the fact that they just posted Season 4 of Stargate SG1 - now Seasons 1-4 are all available whenever I want them.  <b>Hulu is the best thing to happen to television since color.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Hulu - in fact , Hulu is the only place I watch " television .
" House , 24 , Bones , Heroes , Family Guy , Simpsons , The Daily Show , The Colbert Report... sure , some shows like House are n't available until 8 days after they air but what do I really miss out on.. a couple days of water cooler chat ?
Seriously , I can wait for my fix .
Not to mention the fact that they just posted Season 4 of Stargate SG1 - now Seasons 1-4 are all available whenever I want them .
Hulu is the best thing to happen to television since color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Hulu - in fact, Hulu is the only place I watch "television.
"  House, 24, Bones, Heroes, Family Guy, Simpsons, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report... sure, some shows like House aren't available until 8 days after they air but what do I really miss out on.. a couple days of water cooler chat?
Seriously, I can wait for my fix.
Not to mention the fact that they just posted Season 4 of Stargate SG1 - now Seasons 1-4 are all available whenever I want them.
Hulu is the best thing to happen to television since color.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489679</id>
	<title>Awesome... this means more content.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the online rate is higher than the actual TV rate, it stands to reason we'll see more and more online...<br>of course, business sense and cable television have VERY little to do with one another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the online rate is higher than the actual TV rate , it stands to reason we 'll see more and more online...of course , business sense and cable television have VERY little to do with one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the online rate is higher than the actual TV rate, it stands to reason we'll see more and more online...of course, business sense and cable television have VERY little to do with one another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490269</id>
	<title>HuluVo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246024620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also costs more because there's no such thing as a HuluVo [or MythHulu] to let you jump over ads.</p><p>Not to mention that Hulu can tell an advertiser exactly how many people are watching the show--and where they are. Over cable TV, they have to rely on Neilsen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also costs more because there 's no such thing as a HuluVo [ or MythHulu ] to let you jump over ads.Not to mention that Hulu can tell an advertiser exactly how many people are watching the show--and where they are .
Over cable TV , they have to rely on Neilsen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also costs more because there's no such thing as a HuluVo [or MythHulu] to let you jump over ads.Not to mention that Hulu can tell an advertiser exactly how many people are watching the show--and where they are.
Over cable TV, they have to rely on Neilsen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490147</id>
	<title>"tectonic shift"</title>
	<author>Mr. Picklesworth</author>
	<datestamp>1246023360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is "tectonic shift" the new "quantum leap," after Maddox pointed out just how fucking stupid "<a href="http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum\_of\_phallus" title="thebestpag...iverse.net">Quantum of Solace</a> [thebestpag...iverse.net]" is?<br>(Or did people using quanta to describe big things just get hit in the head?)</p><p>Tectonics, (from the Greek for "builder", tekton), is a field of study within geology concerned generally with the structures within the crust of the Earth (or other planets) and particularly with the forces and movements that have operated in a region to create these structures.<br>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic</p><p># pertaining to the structure or movement of the earth's crust; "tectonic plates"; "tectonic valleys"<br># of or pertaining to construction or architecture<br>wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn</p><p>The deformation forces acting on a planet's crust.<br>earthsci.org/processes/geopro/volc/volcterm.htm</p><p>So are you trying to describe an earthquake brought on by a <i>particular</i> "movement of a planet's crust" "sudden movement"? Of what magnitude?</p><p>Look, if you want to make something sound big, just say "big," or at least pull out a dictionary before you start making nonsense metaphors. Okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is " tectonic shift " the new " quantum leap , " after Maddox pointed out just how fucking stupid " Quantum of Solace [ thebestpag...iverse.net ] " is ?
( Or did people using quanta to describe big things just get hit in the head ?
) Tectonics , ( from the Greek for " builder " , tekton ) , is a field of study within geology concerned generally with the structures within the crust of the Earth ( or other planets ) and particularly with the forces and movements that have operated in a region to create these structures.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic # pertaining to the structure or movement of the earth 's crust ; " tectonic plates " ; " tectonic valleys " # of or pertaining to construction or architecturewordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwnThe deformation forces acting on a planet 's crust.earthsci.org/processes/geopro/volc/volcterm.htmSo are you trying to describe an earthquake brought on by a particular " movement of a planet 's crust " " sudden movement " ?
Of what magnitude ? Look , if you want to make something sound big , just say " big , " or at least pull out a dictionary before you start making nonsense metaphors .
Okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is "tectonic shift" the new "quantum leap," after Maddox pointed out just how fucking stupid "Quantum of Solace [thebestpag...iverse.net]" is?
(Or did people using quanta to describe big things just get hit in the head?
)Tectonics, (from the Greek for "builder", tekton), is a field of study within geology concerned generally with the structures within the crust of the Earth (or other planets) and particularly with the forces and movements that have operated in a region to create these structures.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic# pertaining to the structure or movement of the earth's crust; "tectonic plates"; "tectonic valleys"# of or pertaining to construction or architecturewordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwnThe deformation forces acting on a planet's crust.earthsci.org/processes/geopro/volc/volcterm.htmSo are you trying to describe an earthquake brought on by a particular "movement of a planet's crust" "sudden movement"?
Of what magnitude?Look, if you want to make something sound big, just say "big," or at least pull out a dictionary before you start making nonsense metaphors.
Okay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489877</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1246020600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many have already pointed out (and many more will), it might be tricky to compare the numbers between TV and online broadcast, *but* I personally don't care. What I hope is that the media companies buy into the numbers and let me (outside US) watch my favorite programs online!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many have already pointed out ( and many more will ) , it might be tricky to compare the numbers between TV and online broadcast , * but * I personally do n't care .
What I hope is that the media companies buy into the numbers and let me ( outside US ) watch my favorite programs online !
: -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many have already pointed out (and many more will), it might be tricky to compare the numbers between TV and online broadcast, *but* I personally don't care.
What I hope is that the media companies buy into the numbers and let me (outside US) watch my favorite programs online!
:-D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28493865</id>
	<title>9 minutes?   More like 18 minutes per hour.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246108920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original post states 9 minutes of advertising per episode.      I hope that they work talking about 30 minute shows.      When I PVR CSI or other 1 hour shows, and then edit out the commercials, I'm left with 42 minutes of video.     So, it is more like 18 minutes of advertising, which is a full THIRTY PERCENT.      I was reading a while back about what, in the industry, they call "advertising load", used to be about 10-15\%.     Now it is THIRTY FREAKING PERCENT.     No wonder viewership is down.</p><p>Just wait; when internet TV becomes the predominant way of viewing, there will be a lot more adds.    At least with my PVR (EyeTV on my Mac MINI), I can skip the ads.   With the flash-based online video views, you have to wait through the ads.    This isn't bad with the 15-30 second ad spots, but it will get annoying when they become 3 minutes long.</p><p>One very annoying thing is that you see the same ad during every ad spot.</p><p>All that said, I do enjoy the convenience of using hulu, cbs.com, and abc.com to catch up on shows that I forgot to record, or missed for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original post states 9 minutes of advertising per episode .
I hope that they work talking about 30 minute shows .
When I PVR CSI or other 1 hour shows , and then edit out the commercials , I 'm left with 42 minutes of video .
So , it is more like 18 minutes of advertising , which is a full THIRTY PERCENT .
I was reading a while back about what , in the industry , they call " advertising load " , used to be about 10-15 \ % .
Now it is THIRTY FREAKING PERCENT .
No wonder viewership is down.Just wait ; when internet TV becomes the predominant way of viewing , there will be a lot more adds .
At least with my PVR ( EyeTV on my Mac MINI ) , I can skip the ads .
With the flash-based online video views , you have to wait through the ads .
This is n't bad with the 15-30 second ad spots , but it will get annoying when they become 3 minutes long.One very annoying thing is that you see the same ad during every ad spot.All that said , I do enjoy the convenience of using hulu , cbs.com , and abc.com to catch up on shows that I forgot to record , or missed for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original post states 9 minutes of advertising per episode.
I hope that they work talking about 30 minute shows.
When I PVR CSI or other 1 hour shows, and then edit out the commercials, I'm left with 42 minutes of video.
So, it is more like 18 minutes of advertising, which is a full THIRTY PERCENT.
I was reading a while back about what, in the industry, they call "advertising load", used to be about 10-15\%.
Now it is THIRTY FREAKING PERCENT.
No wonder viewership is down.Just wait; when internet TV becomes the predominant way of viewing, there will be a lot more adds.
At least with my PVR (EyeTV on my Mac MINI), I can skip the ads.
With the flash-based online video views, you have to wait through the ads.
This isn't bad with the 15-30 second ad spots, but it will get annoying when they become 3 minutes long.One very annoying thing is that you see the same ad during every ad spot.All that said, I do enjoy the convenience of using hulu, cbs.com, and abc.com to catch up on shows that I forgot to record, or missed for some reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491079</id>
	<title>Re:WTF Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely true, and I don't particularly like it either. I tolerate it though, because so long as it's confined to idle, it's easy enough to ignore. Ok, actually I only tolerate it because the occasional article or two is actually interesting, and since the communities on Digg and Fark are intolerable philistines, I'm not going to get my idle fix from there.</p><p>Problems only arise when idle articles are misfiled as news or tech, or worse (and unforgivably frequently) in the science section. Thankfully slashdot is not where I go for my science articles anyway, but misfiling articles this way can only mislead those who are beginning to develop an interest in science/tech/whatever as to what the topic is actually about. As such, this is inevitably contributing to (rather than being symptomatic of) the dumbening of the internet, as sexconker so eloquently put it.</p><p>Seriously though, stoned wallabies counts as a scientific breakthrough now? Fuck you, samzenpus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely true , and I do n't particularly like it either .
I tolerate it though , because so long as it 's confined to idle , it 's easy enough to ignore .
Ok , actually I only tolerate it because the occasional article or two is actually interesting , and since the communities on Digg and Fark are intolerable philistines , I 'm not going to get my idle fix from there.Problems only arise when idle articles are misfiled as news or tech , or worse ( and unforgivably frequently ) in the science section .
Thankfully slashdot is not where I go for my science articles anyway , but misfiling articles this way can only mislead those who are beginning to develop an interest in science/tech/whatever as to what the topic is actually about .
As such , this is inevitably contributing to ( rather than being symptomatic of ) the dumbening of the internet , as sexconker so eloquently put it.Seriously though , stoned wallabies counts as a scientific breakthrough now ?
Fuck you , samzenpus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely true, and I don't particularly like it either.
I tolerate it though, because so long as it's confined to idle, it's easy enough to ignore.
Ok, actually I only tolerate it because the occasional article or two is actually interesting, and since the communities on Digg and Fark are intolerable philistines, I'm not going to get my idle fix from there.Problems only arise when idle articles are misfiled as news or tech, or worse (and unforgivably frequently) in the science section.
Thankfully slashdot is not where I go for my science articles anyway, but misfiling articles this way can only mislead those who are beginning to develop an interest in science/tech/whatever as to what the topic is actually about.
As such, this is inevitably contributing to (rather than being symptomatic of) the dumbening of the internet, as sexconker so eloquently put it.Seriously though, stoned wallabies counts as a scientific breakthrough now?
Fuck you, samzenpus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490669</id>
	<title>Re:The right demographic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My media consumption is split probably 70-30 online legit content vs. watching it off the TV.  I haven't setup my DVR since we moved into a new house but before that, everything went on the media computer.  I don't want to mess with downloading and finding content.  With a hulu, I know it's there for three weeks...I found with the DVR if it didn't get watched in a week, it was never going to get watched (in a house with six people).  I have it setup so I can plug my laptop into the TV and stereo now, if I miss something I'll just put it up on my TV and watch it.  Frankly, I think it's fair to watch 2-3 minutes of ads targeted at me vs. 10 minutes typically found on TV.  If it means I can watch my shows on my schedule, it's worth it.  And, while I think copyright is totally messed up now, I don't think I should be ripping off content producers.  At some point, if they can't make money producing content, they will stop making content...right now, the torrenters and copiers are subsidized by the people who consume content paid for by advertising.  Once advertising is no longer profitable, everyone loses.  I don't know how the landscape will change so producers can make money but it will change...and I'll go along with it.  But until then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to watch a couple of ads in exchange for entertainment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My media consumption is split probably 70-30 online legit content vs. watching it off the TV .
I have n't setup my DVR since we moved into a new house but before that , everything went on the media computer .
I do n't want to mess with downloading and finding content .
With a hulu , I know it 's there for three weeks...I found with the DVR if it did n't get watched in a week , it was never going to get watched ( in a house with six people ) .
I have it setup so I can plug my laptop into the TV and stereo now , if I miss something I 'll just put it up on my TV and watch it .
Frankly , I think it 's fair to watch 2-3 minutes of ads targeted at me vs. 10 minutes typically found on TV .
If it means I can watch my shows on my schedule , it 's worth it .
And , while I think copyright is totally messed up now , I do n't think I should be ripping off content producers .
At some point , if they ca n't make money producing content , they will stop making content...right now , the torrenters and copiers are subsidized by the people who consume content paid for by advertising .
Once advertising is no longer profitable , everyone loses .
I do n't know how the landscape will change so producers can make money but it will change...and I 'll go along with it .
But until then , I think it 's perfectly reasonable to watch a couple of ads in exchange for entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My media consumption is split probably 70-30 online legit content vs. watching it off the TV.
I haven't setup my DVR since we moved into a new house but before that, everything went on the media computer.
I don't want to mess with downloading and finding content.
With a hulu, I know it's there for three weeks...I found with the DVR if it didn't get watched in a week, it was never going to get watched (in a house with six people).
I have it setup so I can plug my laptop into the TV and stereo now, if I miss something I'll just put it up on my TV and watch it.
Frankly, I think it's fair to watch 2-3 minutes of ads targeted at me vs. 10 minutes typically found on TV.
If it means I can watch my shows on my schedule, it's worth it.
And, while I think copyright is totally messed up now, I don't think I should be ripping off content producers.
At some point, if they can't make money producing content, they will stop making content...right now, the torrenters and copiers are subsidized by the people who consume content paid for by advertising.
Once advertising is no longer profitable, everyone loses.
I don't know how the landscape will change so producers can make money but it will change...and I'll go along with it.
But until then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to watch a couple of ads in exchange for entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490193</id>
	<title>Re:The right demographic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is wrong.  I'm about as hard core as they come piracy wise; as long as I've known about the internet I've pirated all my movies and TV shows as a matter of principle.  <br> <br>
Recently, a friend suggested I watch babylon 5, so I started watching them on Hulu for some reason.  Hulu only has up to season 2, and when I finished watching that, all of a sudden it seemed like a <i>huge fucking hassle</i> to have to torrent them.  The difference in convenience between click-&gt;watch in 30 seconds (after the 1st hulu ad) and click-&gt;watch in 15 minutes (after the torrent finishes) cannot be overstated.<br> <br>

Not to mention, anyone under 30 should easily be ADD enough to tab over to slashdot and read 2 stories in the time it takes a 15-second hulu ad to play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is wrong .
I 'm about as hard core as they come piracy wise ; as long as I 've known about the internet I 've pirated all my movies and TV shows as a matter of principle .
Recently , a friend suggested I watch babylon 5 , so I started watching them on Hulu for some reason .
Hulu only has up to season 2 , and when I finished watching that , all of a sudden it seemed like a huge fucking hassle to have to torrent them .
The difference in convenience between click- &gt; watch in 30 seconds ( after the 1st hulu ad ) and click- &gt; watch in 15 minutes ( after the torrent finishes ) can not be overstated .
Not to mention , anyone under 30 should easily be ADD enough to tab over to slashdot and read 2 stories in the time it takes a 15-second hulu ad to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is wrong.
I'm about as hard core as they come piracy wise; as long as I've known about the internet I've pirated all my movies and TV shows as a matter of principle.
Recently, a friend suggested I watch babylon 5, so I started watching them on Hulu for some reason.
Hulu only has up to season 2, and when I finished watching that, all of a sudden it seemed like a huge fucking hassle to have to torrent them.
The difference in convenience between click-&gt;watch in 30 seconds (after the 1st hulu ad) and click-&gt;watch in 15 minutes (after the torrent finishes) cannot be overstated.
Not to mention, anyone under 30 should easily be ADD enough to tab over to slashdot and read 2 stories in the time it takes a 15-second hulu ad to play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693</id>
	<title>Important clarification</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1246019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that it sounds like it's worth more per viewer <i>to the advertiser</i>, but not to the TV network. The advertiser will pay more for the Hulu version, but since there's only one of them it brings less income to the studio.</p><p>So I don't think you can use this story to go "look, the studios should embrace online distribution" on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that it sounds like it 's worth more per viewer to the advertiser , but not to the TV network .
The advertiser will pay more for the Hulu version , but since there 's only one of them it brings less income to the studio.So I do n't think you can use this story to go " look , the studios should embrace online distribution " on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that it sounds like it's worth more per viewer to the advertiser, but not to the TV network.
The advertiser will pay more for the Hulu version, but since there's only one of them it brings less income to the studio.So I don't think you can use this story to go "look, the studios should embrace online distribution" on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490375</id>
	<title>Example of picking the numbers</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1246025640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story. In this case, its "per thousand viewers." Isn't it the total income that really really matters? 1000 people viewed it, woop woop. TV viewers are in the millions, and Ads run for, what, 9 minutes? Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of  viewers, your online TV ad revenue isn't going to save any networks anytime soon.</p><p>The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters. In the end it just depends who gets paid more to say what. Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.</p><p>btw Tivo might kill TV ads, but ALT+TAB works fine for me, although I'm usually listening more rather than watching. I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer doesn't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story .
In this case , its " per thousand viewers .
" Is n't it the total income that really really matters ?
1000 people viewed it , woop woop .
TV viewers are in the millions , and Ads run for , what , 9 minutes ?
Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of viewers , your online TV ad revenue is n't going to save any networks anytime soon.The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters .
In the end it just depends who gets paid more to say what .
Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.btw Tivo might kill TV ads , but ALT + TAB works fine for me , although I 'm usually listening more rather than watching .
I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer does n't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story.
In this case, its "per thousand viewers.
" Isn't it the total income that really really matters?
1000 people viewed it, woop woop.
TV viewers are in the millions, and Ads run for, what, 9 minutes?
Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of  viewers, your online TV ad revenue isn't going to save any networks anytime soon.The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters.
In the end it just depends who gets paid more to say what.
Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.btw Tivo might kill TV ads, but ALT+TAB works fine for me, although I'm usually listening more rather than watching.
I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer doesn't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039</id>
	<title>So how about dropping the block?</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1246022100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?</p><p>Sure, I can always get the episodes from torrents almost right after regular broadcasting, but that way there's no profit in it for the makers of show. And unless someone offers it online "in my country" (I rather despise the concept of country borders on the Internet), that it's being broadcast at some point in time way later, at a time of day I probably won't be able to watch it, and certainly on a channel not available to me, there isn't a good reason to make the episodes already online from a US service, unavailable to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers , what 's the point of blocking non-US users ? Sure , I can always get the episodes from torrents almost right after regular broadcasting , but that way there 's no profit in it for the makers of show .
And unless someone offers it online " in my country " ( I rather despise the concept of country borders on the Internet ) , that it 's being broadcast at some point in time way later , at a time of day I probably wo n't be able to watch it , and certainly on a channel not available to me , there is n't a good reason to make the episodes already online from a US service , unavailable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?Sure, I can always get the episodes from torrents almost right after regular broadcasting, but that way there's no profit in it for the makers of show.
And unless someone offers it online "in my country" (I rather despise the concept of country borders on the Internet), that it's being broadcast at some point in time way later, at a time of day I probably won't be able to watch it, and certainly on a channel not available to me, there isn't a good reason to make the episodes already online from a US service, unavailable to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489931</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246021020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring. Or else hilarious. They wouldn't be 'harmed' by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring .
Or else hilarious .
They would n't be 'harmed ' by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring.
Or else hilarious.
They wouldn't be 'harmed' by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490365</id>
	<title>THIS VIDEO WILL BE FLAGGED</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246025580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>thank god youtube removes adult content.</p></div><p>It doesn't filter out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=this+video+will+be+flagged" title="youtube.com">dirty words looped for a minute</a> [youtube.com]. Heaven help your five- and two-year-olds once they discover <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.YouTubePoop" title="tvtropes.org">YTP</a> [tvtropes.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>thank god youtube removes adult content.It does n't filter out dirty words looped for a minute [ youtube.com ] .
Heaven help your five- and two-year-olds once they discover YTP [ tvtropes.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank god youtube removes adult content.It doesn't filter out dirty words looped for a minute [youtube.com].
Heaven help your five- and two-year-olds once they discover YTP [tvtropes.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489777</id>
	<title>Re:Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246019820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And since it's a short spo, I end up sitting there because it's not long enough to get up and do anything else. So if I get to go to the bathroom, I wait until the 30-90 seconds is up, stop and then go take a leak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And since it 's a short spo , I end up sitting there because it 's not long enough to get up and do anything else .
So if I get to go to the bathroom , I wait until the 30-90 seconds is up , stop and then go take a leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since it's a short spo, I end up sitting there because it's not long enough to get up and do anything else.
So if I get to go to the bathroom, I wait until the 30-90 seconds is up, stop and then go take a leak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489951</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1246021200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Err, what? I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu</p></div></blockquote><p>
Almost every video has one. Above the video and to the right.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Are you conscious?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , what ?
I 've never seen a banner ad on Hulu Almost every video has one .
Above the video and to the right.I do n't see how it 's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show , that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement .
Are you conscious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, what?
I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu
Almost every video has one.
Above the video and to the right.I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.
Are you conscious?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491087</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1246033740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what the costs are for a broadcast versus a webcast?  For a broadcast you'd need to coordinate multiple stations and time zones, there are power costs to push the signal, station costs, licensing costs..  For a webcast there's the server and pipe sized to the load you expect. Maybe you need Akamai or some other similar system, but I expect that it's much cheaper than broadcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the costs are for a broadcast versus a webcast ?
For a broadcast you 'd need to coordinate multiple stations and time zones , there are power costs to push the signal , station costs , licensing costs.. For a webcast there 's the server and pipe sized to the load you expect .
Maybe you need Akamai or some other similar system , but I expect that it 's much cheaper than broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the costs are for a broadcast versus a webcast?
For a broadcast you'd need to coordinate multiple stations and time zones, there are power costs to push the signal, station costs, licensing costs..  For a webcast there's the server and pipe sized to the load you expect.
Maybe you need Akamai or some other similar system, but I expect that it's much cheaper than broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489987</id>
	<title>PCworld sucks at math</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246021500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It costs $60/1000 viewers on hulu because they have <b>exclusive advertising</b>. Sure they make less per advertiser on TV but they are showing ads from 4 or 5 diferent people every commercial break. So it's more like $30*5=$150/1000viewers on TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It costs $ 60/1000 viewers on hulu because they have exclusive advertising .
Sure they make less per advertiser on TV but they are showing ads from 4 or 5 diferent people every commercial break .
So it 's more like $ 30 * 5 = $ 150/1000viewers on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It costs $60/1000 viewers on hulu because they have exclusive advertising.
Sure they make less per advertiser on TV but they are showing ads from 4 or 5 diferent people every commercial break.
So it's more like $30*5=$150/1000viewers on TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489977</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246021380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck.  No one can do Math anymore.  An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more <em>by the numbers in the summary</em>.  In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much.  Doh!</p><p>Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.</p><p>-Peter</p></div><p>Maybe the math is hard because I can't figure out how 60 is 1/15th of 40 or 20.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck .
No one can do Math anymore .
An episode of The Simpsons absolutely is n't worth more by the numbers in the summary .
In fact , it 's worth about 1/15th as much .
Doh ! Maybe the article is worth something , but the summary is so bad I ca n't bring myself to click.-PeterMaybe the math is hard because I ca n't figure out how 60 is 1/15th of 40 or 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck.
No one can do Math anymore.
An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more by the numbers in the summary.
In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much.
Doh!Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.-PeterMaybe the math is hard because I can't figure out how 60 is 1/15th of 40 or 20.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490205</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246023900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. What part of "adult content" exactly does "harm" kids, and how?</p><p>And how is this not just a giant "monkey see, monkey do" contest without any thought involved?</p><p>Don't think they can't see this stuff, if they *want*. They point is that they don't. It's their Goatse. You like to know what it is, but you don't want to see it.</p><p>I think this fear of nudity that comes with it, has hurted children more that it protected them.</p><p>After all, this whole concept stems from the religious badmouthing of sex, to make everyone a sinner, so that everyone has to beg for their commands (to "clean" themselves), which makes everyone a slave.<br>So we teach our kids to be slaves, with this behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
What part of " adult content " exactly does " harm " kids , and how ? And how is this not just a giant " monkey see , monkey do " contest without any thought involved ? Do n't think they ca n't see this stuff , if they * want * .
They point is that they do n't .
It 's their Goatse .
You like to know what it is , but you do n't want to see it.I think this fear of nudity that comes with it , has hurted children more that it protected them.After all , this whole concept stems from the religious badmouthing of sex , to make everyone a sinner , so that everyone has to beg for their commands ( to " clean " themselves ) , which makes everyone a slave.So we teach our kids to be slaves , with this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
What part of "adult content" exactly does "harm" kids, and how?And how is this not just a giant "monkey see, monkey do" contest without any thought involved?Don't think they can't see this stuff, if they *want*.
They point is that they don't.
It's their Goatse.
You like to know what it is, but you don't want to see it.I think this fear of nudity that comes with it, has hurted children more that it protected them.After all, this whole concept stems from the religious badmouthing of sex, to make everyone a sinner, so that everyone has to beg for their commands (to "clean" themselves), which makes everyone a slave.So we teach our kids to be slaves, with this behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28503487</id>
	<title>Re:Too many commercials</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1246201560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely there are too many commercials on cable TV.</p><p>On the very rare ocassions I fire up the TV and channel surf, it goes like this:</p><p>click (commercial) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (rerun I've seen) click (commercial) click (movie I already own unedited-for-TV copy of) click (commercial) click (religious programming) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (Spanish channel)</p><p>Booooooring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely there are too many commercials on cable TV.On the very rare ocassions I fire up the TV and channel surf , it goes like this : click ( commercial ) click ( commercial ) click ( commercial ) click ( rerun I 've seen ) click ( commercial ) click ( movie I already own unedited-for-TV copy of ) click ( commercial ) click ( religious programming ) click ( commercial ) click ( commercial ) click ( Spanish channel ) Booooooring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely there are too many commercials on cable TV.On the very rare ocassions I fire up the TV and channel surf, it goes like this:click (commercial) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (rerun I've seen) click (commercial) click (movie I already own unedited-for-TV copy of) click (commercial) click (religious programming) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (Spanish channel)Booooooring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490485</id>
	<title>Re:WTF Slashdot?</title>
	<author>wampus</author>
	<datestamp>1246026600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason it shits pieces of those horrible sliding controls (these don't work on touchscreens, if anyone who can do anything about this cares) and the friend/foe indicators all over comments pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason it shits pieces of those horrible sliding controls ( these do n't work on touchscreens , if anyone who can do anything about this cares ) and the friend/foe indicators all over comments pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason it shits pieces of those horrible sliding controls (these don't work on touchscreens, if anyone who can do anything about this cares) and the friend/foe indicators all over comments pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28498825</id>
	<title>Just not the same</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1246105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you are watching television, you end up watching whatever is on, which is not something that generally excites you, and then on top of that, you have the additional insult of having to spend 40\% of your time watching ads.</p><p>So, in short, because the quality of the show is marginal, you put up with further marginalization in order to have it "pay" for the content provider.</p><p>But with Hulu, you watch what you want. When you want. You CLICKED on the show. It's something you DESIRE to watch, not something that's "on". So I don't end up watching golf on Saturday afternoon, I watch stuff I happen to like: Bones, House, Burn Notice. I just caught a new show ("The Philanthropist") so good that it actually made me tear up more than once. Against this backdrop, I'm more than happy to watch a SINGLE commercial 4x in a show, and I'm even OK with the fact that I can't skip the ads. I watch what I want, when I want to. <b>For now, formula of "online TV" works so well for me that I will probably never again buy cable or satellite TV so long as online television remains at least as good as it is now.</b></p><p>Seriously, when you get used to watching what you want, when you want, without knowing in advance what you want, with the ability to "catch up" when you discover something new, "normal" cable just seems... stale. Why bother?</p><p>I don't have a DTV converter box, and I have no interest in one. My Mac Mini + big screen have done everything I care to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you are watching television , you end up watching whatever is on , which is not something that generally excites you , and then on top of that , you have the additional insult of having to spend 40 \ % of your time watching ads.So , in short , because the quality of the show is marginal , you put up with further marginalization in order to have it " pay " for the content provider.But with Hulu , you watch what you want .
When you want .
You CLICKED on the show .
It 's something you DESIRE to watch , not something that 's " on " .
So I do n't end up watching golf on Saturday afternoon , I watch stuff I happen to like : Bones , House , Burn Notice .
I just caught a new show ( " The Philanthropist " ) so good that it actually made me tear up more than once .
Against this backdrop , I 'm more than happy to watch a SINGLE commercial 4x in a show , and I 'm even OK with the fact that I ca n't skip the ads .
I watch what I want , when I want to .
For now , formula of " online TV " works so well for me that I will probably never again buy cable or satellite TV so long as online television remains at least as good as it is now.Seriously , when you get used to watching what you want , when you want , without knowing in advance what you want , with the ability to " catch up " when you discover something new , " normal " cable just seems... stale. Why bother ? I do n't have a DTV converter box , and I have no interest in one .
My Mac Mini + big screen have done everything I care to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you are watching television, you end up watching whatever is on, which is not something that generally excites you, and then on top of that, you have the additional insult of having to spend 40\% of your time watching ads.So, in short, because the quality of the show is marginal, you put up with further marginalization in order to have it "pay" for the content provider.But with Hulu, you watch what you want.
When you want.
You CLICKED on the show.
It's something you DESIRE to watch, not something that's "on".
So I don't end up watching golf on Saturday afternoon, I watch stuff I happen to like: Bones, House, Burn Notice.
I just caught a new show ("The Philanthropist") so good that it actually made me tear up more than once.
Against this backdrop, I'm more than happy to watch a SINGLE commercial 4x in a show, and I'm even OK with the fact that I can't skip the ads.
I watch what I want, when I want to.
For now, formula of "online TV" works so well for me that I will probably never again buy cable or satellite TV so long as online television remains at least as good as it is now.Seriously, when you get used to watching what you want, when you want, without knowing in advance what you want, with the ability to "catch up" when you discover something new, "normal" cable just seems... stale. Why bother?I don't have a DTV converter box, and I have no interest in one.
My Mac Mini + big screen have done everything I care to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491033</id>
	<title>Re:Important clarification</title>
	<author>swell</author>
	<datestamp>1246032960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up please</p><p>The headline is just plain wrong- Fox gets more than Hulu.</p><p>The math is pretty simple:<br>Hulu: 1 ad X $60 = $60/thousand<br>Fox: 9+ ads X ~$30 = minimum $270/thousand</p><p>Furthermore, I'll wager that more thousands are watching Fox.</p><p>This story seems to be an attempt to make geeks feel good about themselves vs the 'establishment'. Is that really necessary on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up pleaseThe headline is just plain wrong- Fox gets more than Hulu.The math is pretty simple : Hulu : 1 ad X $ 60 = $ 60/thousandFox : 9 + ads X ~ $ 30 = minimum $ 270/thousandFurthermore , I 'll wager that more thousands are watching Fox.This story seems to be an attempt to make geeks feel good about themselves vs the 'establishment' .
Is that really necessary on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up pleaseThe headline is just plain wrong- Fox gets more than Hulu.The math is pretty simple:Hulu: 1 ad X $60 = $60/thousandFox: 9+ ads X ~$30 = minimum $270/thousandFurthermore, I'll wager that more thousands are watching Fox.This story seems to be an attempt to make geeks feel good about themselves vs the 'establishment'.
Is that really necessary on /.
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490693</id>
	<title>Re:Guaranteed?</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1246029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because no one changes the channels during a TV commercial or gets up to take a leak?  People ignoring commercials is nothing new; however, you are spot on when you say that since the commercial breaks are short, it's not worth it to switch over to something else or get up and leave for a minute.  That's probably one of the reason that the prices are so high, because not only are they guaranteed eyeballs, but they are guaranteed un-divided eyeballs.</p><p>I know that I'm more likely to watch a commercial on Hulu than on TV, especially if it's an amusing commercial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because no one changes the channels during a TV commercial or gets up to take a leak ?
People ignoring commercials is nothing new ; however , you are spot on when you say that since the commercial breaks are short , it 's not worth it to switch over to something else or get up and leave for a minute .
That 's probably one of the reason that the prices are so high , because not only are they guaranteed eyeballs , but they are guaranteed un-divided eyeballs.I know that I 'm more likely to watch a commercial on Hulu than on TV , especially if it 's an amusing commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because no one changes the channels during a TV commercial or gets up to take a leak?
People ignoring commercials is nothing new; however, you are spot on when you say that since the commercial breaks are short, it's not worth it to switch over to something else or get up and leave for a minute.
That's probably one of the reason that the prices are so high, because not only are they guaranteed eyeballs, but they are guaranteed un-divided eyeballs.I know that I'm more likely to watch a commercial on Hulu than on TV, especially if it's an amusing commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789</id>
	<title>Math</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1246019880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck.  No one can do Math anymore.  An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more <em>by the numbers in the summary</em>.  In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much.  Doh!</p><p>Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck .
No one can do Math anymore .
An episode of The Simpsons absolutely is n't worth more by the numbers in the summary .
In fact , it 's worth about 1/15th as much .
Doh ! Maybe the article is worth something , but the summary is so bad I ca n't bring myself to click.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck.
No one can do Math anymore.
An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more by the numbers in the summary.
In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much.
Doh!Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.-Peter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489983</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246021380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You asked for it:</p><p>HELLO ANONYMOUS COWARDON!</p><p>Have you tried NEW frosty piss flakes?<br>Only $4.99!</p><p>Don't forget to take advantage of our flamebait special at the butcher counter!</p><p>This Friday only, buy a dozen pack of identical racist posts, ready for copy-and-paste action, get a FREE Obama coprophilia rant!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You asked for it : HELLO ANONYMOUS COWARDON ! Have you tried NEW frosty piss flakes ? Only $ 4.99 ! Do n't forget to take advantage of our flamebait special at the butcher counter ! This Friday only , buy a dozen pack of identical racist posts , ready for copy-and-paste action , get a FREE Obama coprophilia rant !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You asked for it:HELLO ANONYMOUS COWARDON!Have you tried NEW frosty piss flakes?Only $4.99!Don't forget to take advantage of our flamebait special at the butcher counter!This Friday only, buy a dozen pack of identical racist posts, ready for copy-and-paste action, get a FREE Obama coprophilia rant!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly can't wait until I don't mind watching adverts. That is, they're MORE FUCKING RELEVENT TO ME.  I would ENJOY giving any company my personal data if it meant all the adverts I viewed were very relevent to my needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly ca n't wait until I do n't mind watching adverts .
That is , they 're MORE FUCKING RELEVENT TO ME .
I would ENJOY giving any company my personal data if it meant all the adverts I viewed were very relevent to my needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly can't wait until I don't mind watching adverts.
That is, they're MORE FUCKING RELEVENT TO ME.
I would ENJOY giving any company my personal data if it meant all the adverts I viewed were very relevent to my needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490229</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246024320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The change is far bigger that you think. It's a shift from passivity, to an active citizenship. People don't just get controlled that easily anymore. Now for the first time in history, we have a powerful weapon against those who control us. One that is nearly indestructible, and that is intuitive to us.<br>It teaches us, that we are in control of our live.</p><p>We just yet have to accustom to it, and find out what we actually want, and forgot in all that long time.</p><p>Where else can you just walk away from someone, and tell him that he is the biggest asshole, even when it's the biggest bully and criminal organization on the planet? In the real world that would get you killed. And can could not just walk away from the things you use, when they are: A newspaper, a shopping mall, and a large bully talking to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The change is far bigger that you think .
It 's a shift from passivity , to an active citizenship .
People do n't just get controlled that easily anymore .
Now for the first time in history , we have a powerful weapon against those who control us .
One that is nearly indestructible , and that is intuitive to us.It teaches us , that we are in control of our live.We just yet have to accustom to it , and find out what we actually want , and forgot in all that long time.Where else can you just walk away from someone , and tell him that he is the biggest asshole , even when it 's the biggest bully and criminal organization on the planet ?
In the real world that would get you killed .
And can could not just walk away from the things you use , when they are : A newspaper , a shopping mall , and a large bully talking to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The change is far bigger that you think.
It's a shift from passivity, to an active citizenship.
People don't just get controlled that easily anymore.
Now for the first time in history, we have a powerful weapon against those who control us.
One that is nearly indestructible, and that is intuitive to us.It teaches us, that we are in control of our live.We just yet have to accustom to it, and find out what we actually want, and forgot in all that long time.Where else can you just walk away from someone, and tell him that he is the biggest asshole, even when it's the biggest bully and criminal organization on the planet?
In the real world that would get you killed.
And can could not just walk away from the things you use, when they are: A newspaper, a shopping mall, and a large bully talking to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490107</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To Facegarden and Brian Gordon.  I've used Hulu for almost the past year and a half on a nearly daily basis, Hulu for a while (when they had all of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) was all I was watching.  Used it on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome.  I've never had this issue with the banner ads.  Are you never watching in fullscreen?  I prefer actually how Hulu does it, you can vote on whether you "like" or dislike and ad.  And it will then choose future ads based on my past selections.  I like this b/c if I'm going to have to have an ad, it might as well be one I can tolerate.  So back to Brian's initial point.  I don't think you charge the higher revenue b/c it's on screen longer b/c I'm quite certain that ads are shorter on Hulu.  (22 or 23 min. shows with 3 20 to 30 second commercials = at most 26 minutes of time, vs. tv broadcast of 23 min. show, 7 minutes of commercials = 30 minute slot.)  One of the things that amazed me and my friends when we all started switching to internet only television was that we were spending far less time watching ads.  I would therefore assume that you actually have more online viewers for these shows than you do for television.  The difference is that TV has a monopoly on new material.  IE. if you want to watch the newest Simpsons you need to watch it on TV, b/c it doesn't come to the net until like a week later.    So maybe TV generates more viewers for a specific new popular episode but for shows that have already been aired you have got to be getting more viewers online than on TV.  If you go on Hulu regularly you'll see for example that certain episodes of say Family Guy are not only viewed but commented on by multiple people everyday.  I doubt very much the bulk of the TV watching crowd wants to rewatch shows this frequently, but people who watch shows on their computers (where it's easier to watch them) tend to watch the same episode many times.  I've seen several episodes in collections I've owned dozens of times.</p><p>Bottomline it's more expensive b/c that's where the bulk of the growing viewership is.  Why should I be forced to watch a show on some arbitrary schedule if technology allows me to watch the show when I want to?  I've also seen other people comment on here about how the brevity of the ads works to keep you watching them.  Totally true.  20 seconds is a pretty decent time, but on tv the average commercial break is about 2 minutes (three breaks of two minutes for 6 of the 7 minutes that make up TV timing, with one more of local advertising).  20 seconds vs. 2 minutes is a big time difference.  I've often thought that if I had more commercials in my shows online I'd be running to the kitchen for snacks more, etc.  So I totally agree that the shorter ads, like 15 ro 20 seconds are way mroe effective than long ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To Facegarden and Brian Gordon .
I 've used Hulu for almost the past year and a half on a nearly daily basis , Hulu for a while ( when they had all of It 's Always Sunny in Philadelphia ) was all I was watching .
Used it on Firefox , Opera , and Chrome .
I 've never had this issue with the banner ads .
Are you never watching in fullscreen ?
I prefer actually how Hulu does it , you can vote on whether you " like " or dislike and ad .
And it will then choose future ads based on my past selections .
I like this b/c if I 'm going to have to have an ad , it might as well be one I can tolerate .
So back to Brian 's initial point .
I do n't think you charge the higher revenue b/c it 's on screen longer b/c I 'm quite certain that ads are shorter on Hulu .
( 22 or 23 min .
shows with 3 20 to 30 second commercials = at most 26 minutes of time , vs. tv broadcast of 23 min .
show , 7 minutes of commercials = 30 minute slot .
) One of the things that amazed me and my friends when we all started switching to internet only television was that we were spending far less time watching ads .
I would therefore assume that you actually have more online viewers for these shows than you do for television .
The difference is that TV has a monopoly on new material .
IE. if you want to watch the newest Simpsons you need to watch it on TV , b/c it does n't come to the net until like a week later .
So maybe TV generates more viewers for a specific new popular episode but for shows that have already been aired you have got to be getting more viewers online than on TV .
If you go on Hulu regularly you 'll see for example that certain episodes of say Family Guy are not only viewed but commented on by multiple people everyday .
I doubt very much the bulk of the TV watching crowd wants to rewatch shows this frequently , but people who watch shows on their computers ( where it 's easier to watch them ) tend to watch the same episode many times .
I 've seen several episodes in collections I 've owned dozens of times.Bottomline it 's more expensive b/c that 's where the bulk of the growing viewership is .
Why should I be forced to watch a show on some arbitrary schedule if technology allows me to watch the show when I want to ?
I 've also seen other people comment on here about how the brevity of the ads works to keep you watching them .
Totally true .
20 seconds is a pretty decent time , but on tv the average commercial break is about 2 minutes ( three breaks of two minutes for 6 of the 7 minutes that make up TV timing , with one more of local advertising ) .
20 seconds vs. 2 minutes is a big time difference .
I 've often thought that if I had more commercials in my shows online I 'd be running to the kitchen for snacks more , etc .
So I totally agree that the shorter ads , like 15 ro 20 seconds are way mroe effective than long ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To Facegarden and Brian Gordon.
I've used Hulu for almost the past year and a half on a nearly daily basis, Hulu for a while (when they had all of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) was all I was watching.
Used it on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome.
I've never had this issue with the banner ads.
Are you never watching in fullscreen?
I prefer actually how Hulu does it, you can vote on whether you "like" or dislike and ad.
And it will then choose future ads based on my past selections.
I like this b/c if I'm going to have to have an ad, it might as well be one I can tolerate.
So back to Brian's initial point.
I don't think you charge the higher revenue b/c it's on screen longer b/c I'm quite certain that ads are shorter on Hulu.
(22 or 23 min.
shows with 3 20 to 30 second commercials = at most 26 minutes of time, vs. tv broadcast of 23 min.
show, 7 minutes of commercials = 30 minute slot.
)  One of the things that amazed me and my friends when we all started switching to internet only television was that we were spending far less time watching ads.
I would therefore assume that you actually have more online viewers for these shows than you do for television.
The difference is that TV has a monopoly on new material.
IE. if you want to watch the newest Simpsons you need to watch it on TV, b/c it doesn't come to the net until like a week later.
So maybe TV generates more viewers for a specific new popular episode but for shows that have already been aired you have got to be getting more viewers online than on TV.
If you go on Hulu regularly you'll see for example that certain episodes of say Family Guy are not only viewed but commented on by multiple people everyday.
I doubt very much the bulk of the TV watching crowd wants to rewatch shows this frequently, but people who watch shows on their computers (where it's easier to watch them) tend to watch the same episode many times.
I've seen several episodes in collections I've owned dozens of times.Bottomline it's more expensive b/c that's where the bulk of the growing viewership is.
Why should I be forced to watch a show on some arbitrary schedule if technology allows me to watch the show when I want to?
I've also seen other people comment on here about how the brevity of the ads works to keep you watching them.
Totally true.
20 seconds is a pretty decent time, but on tv the average commercial break is about 2 minutes (three breaks of two minutes for 6 of the 7 minutes that make up TV timing, with one more of local advertising).
20 seconds vs. 2 minutes is a big time difference.
I've often thought that if I had more commercials in my shows online I'd be running to the kitchen for snacks more, etc.
So I totally agree that the shorter ads, like 15 ro 20 seconds are way mroe effective than long ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1246019820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, what?  I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu, even when I drop to Chrome (no ad-block).</p><p>Hulu ads are interstitials, just like on TV.  Sometimes they are exactly ads that I've seen on TV also.  They cut in at about the same places too.  The only difference is that they only last a few seconds rather than a couple minutes per commercial break.</p><p>Aside from that, I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , what ?
I 've never seen a banner ad on Hulu , even when I drop to Chrome ( no ad-block ) .Hulu ads are interstitials , just like on TV .
Sometimes they are exactly ads that I 've seen on TV also .
They cut in at about the same places too .
The only difference is that they only last a few seconds rather than a couple minutes per commercial break.Aside from that , I do n't see how it 's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show , that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, what?
I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu, even when I drop to Chrome (no ad-block).Hulu ads are interstitials, just like on TV.
Sometimes they are exactly ads that I've seen on TV also.
They cut in at about the same places too.
The only difference is that they only last a few seconds rather than a couple minutes per commercial break.Aside from that, I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490371</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hold on there.  While the Math may be wrong you also have to take into account that a certain company is not going to pay for all 9 minutes worth of commercials during a Simpsons episode.  They will have signficantly less.  Once per commercial break.  So I don't think we have all the information to get some exact numbers.</p><p>just my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold on there .
While the Math may be wrong you also have to take into account that a certain company is not going to pay for all 9 minutes worth of commercials during a Simpsons episode .
They will have signficantly less .
Once per commercial break .
So I do n't think we have all the information to get some exact numbers.just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold on there.
While the Math may be wrong you also have to take into account that a certain company is not going to pay for all 9 minutes worth of commercials during a Simpsons episode.
They will have signficantly less.
Once per commercial break.
So I don't think we have all the information to get some exact numbers.just my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490035</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1246022040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, exactly.  My daughter does something similar.  It's not necessarily the ads -- If she can't choose the content and control it like a video, she's not interested.  This makes the cable TV uninteresting by definition.
</p><p>
I can't make myself just plop down and watch whatever is on.  There are too many other things to do.  My TV viewing is either movies, or older series that I can watch in sequence (Netflix is great).  I am of the "TV viewing" generation, (color became common when I was in grade school) so I can't explain this, except it might have something to do with early (1980's) connection to the internet.
</p><p>
By far, our household's primary usage of cable TV is for wife to watch soaps.  (She records her daytime soaps, and watches nighttime soaps -- er, hospital and crime dramas -- live.)  Were it not for that, we could easily get along without cable or broadcast TV.
</p><p>
This makes me wonder -- is it a generation thing?  Are people of my generation the last of the traditional TV demographic -- the people who plant butt on couch during prime time and watch whatever is on?  Could it be that after we die out, or become demographically irrelevant, the whole concept of broadcast TV will cease to have meaning?
</p><p>
That would be so cool...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , exactly .
My daughter does something similar .
It 's not necessarily the ads -- If she ca n't choose the content and control it like a video , she 's not interested .
This makes the cable TV uninteresting by definition .
I ca n't make myself just plop down and watch whatever is on .
There are too many other things to do .
My TV viewing is either movies , or older series that I can watch in sequence ( Netflix is great ) .
I am of the " TV viewing " generation , ( color became common when I was in grade school ) so I ca n't explain this , except it might have something to do with early ( 1980 's ) connection to the internet .
By far , our household 's primary usage of cable TV is for wife to watch soaps .
( She records her daytime soaps , and watches nighttime soaps -- er , hospital and crime dramas -- live .
) Were it not for that , we could easily get along without cable or broadcast TV .
This makes me wonder -- is it a generation thing ?
Are people of my generation the last of the traditional TV demographic -- the people who plant butt on couch during prime time and watch whatever is on ?
Could it be that after we die out , or become demographically irrelevant , the whole concept of broadcast TV will cease to have meaning ?
That would be so cool... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, exactly.
My daughter does something similar.
It's not necessarily the ads -- If she can't choose the content and control it like a video, she's not interested.
This makes the cable TV uninteresting by definition.
I can't make myself just plop down and watch whatever is on.
There are too many other things to do.
My TV viewing is either movies, or older series that I can watch in sequence (Netflix is great).
I am of the "TV viewing" generation, (color became common when I was in grade school) so I can't explain this, except it might have something to do with early (1980's) connection to the internet.
By far, our household's primary usage of cable TV is for wife to watch soaps.
(She records her daytime soaps, and watches nighttime soaps -- er, hospital and crime dramas -- live.
)  Were it not for that, we could easily get along without cable or broadcast TV.
This makes me wonder -- is it a generation thing?
Are people of my generation the last of the traditional TV demographic -- the people who plant butt on couch during prime time and watch whatever is on?
Could it be that after we die out, or become demographically irrelevant, the whole concept of broadcast TV will cease to have meaning?
That would be so cool... :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489965</id>
	<title>Re:TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246021320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Mike Judge had it wrong with Idiocracy. He pre-supposed that stupid people will outbreed smart people and create a lot more stupid kids faster than the smart people will create smart kids. What your post shows is that even smart people can have kids that are mindless youTube loving zombies. No offense. You yourself called it random nonsense. How could you let your children watch youTube clips for hours at a time and thank the stars that youTube sensors the naughty stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Mike Judge had it wrong with Idiocracy .
He pre-supposed that stupid people will outbreed smart people and create a lot more stupid kids faster than the smart people will create smart kids .
What your post shows is that even smart people can have kids that are mindless youTube loving zombies .
No offense .
You yourself called it random nonsense .
How could you let your children watch youTube clips for hours at a time and thank the stars that youTube sensors the naughty stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Mike Judge had it wrong with Idiocracy.
He pre-supposed that stupid people will outbreed smart people and create a lot more stupid kids faster than the smart people will create smart kids.
What your post shows is that even smart people can have kids that are mindless youTube loving zombies.
No offense.
You yourself called it random nonsense.
How could you let your children watch youTube clips for hours at a time and thank the stars that youTube sensors the naughty stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494977</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are saying its worth more to advertisers. the people buying it will pay up to 3 times more for the ad.</p><p>but the broadcaster can sell 15 times more ad time. so the broadcaster stands to make more then 5 times more (per viewer) on tv rather then hulu. (plus they run a transmitter rather then a server)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are saying its worth more to advertisers .
the people buying it will pay up to 3 times more for the ad.but the broadcaster can sell 15 times more ad time .
so the broadcaster stands to make more then 5 times more ( per viewer ) on tv rather then hulu .
( plus they run a transmitter rather then a server )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are saying its worth more to advertisers.
the people buying it will pay up to 3 times more for the ad.but the broadcaster can sell 15 times more ad time.
so the broadcaster stands to make more then 5 times more (per viewer) on tv rather then hulu.
(plus they run a transmitter rather then a server)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761</id>
	<title>TV is dead, long live TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My daughter, aged five, watches youtube, managing to plug in and switch on the PC, login to her mum's account, start Firefox, type "you" and then somehow (this part I've not yet figured out) bootstrap herself into cartoons, music videos, and other random nonsense.  She clicks on similar videos and can watch TV like this for several hours.  My son, two, is almost there too.  I guess, thank god youtube removes adult content.</p><p>First, they ignore the real old cable television, it's utterly uninteresting for them.  Secondly, they watch each youtube clip from start to end, and treat advertising, if any, as part of the content.</p><p>How can this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//not// be more profitable than legacy TV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My daughter , aged five , watches youtube , managing to plug in and switch on the PC , login to her mum 's account , start Firefox , type " you " and then somehow ( this part I 've not yet figured out ) bootstrap herself into cartoons , music videos , and other random nonsense .
She clicks on similar videos and can watch TV like this for several hours .
My son , two , is almost there too .
I guess , thank god youtube removes adult content.First , they ignore the real old cable television , it 's utterly uninteresting for them .
Secondly , they watch each youtube clip from start to end , and treat advertising , if any , as part of the content.How can this //not// be more profitable than legacy TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My daughter, aged five, watches youtube, managing to plug in and switch on the PC, login to her mum's account, start Firefox, type "you" and then somehow (this part I've not yet figured out) bootstrap herself into cartoons, music videos, and other random nonsense.
She clicks on similar videos and can watch TV like this for several hours.
My son, two, is almost there too.
I guess, thank god youtube removes adult content.First, they ignore the real old cable television, it's utterly uninteresting for them.
Secondly, they watch each youtube clip from start to end, and treat advertising, if any, as part of the content.How can this //not// be more profitable than legacy TV?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489839</id>
	<title>Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it seems to me that it might be that ads cost more to the advertisers, but there are fewer ads and fewer viewers, meaning overall it's less profitable for the show.  It seems to me that profit per episode for the content owners is a much more important number than cost to advertisers per viewer.  After all, if you're trying to figure out whether something like Hulu can replace TV networks, the question is whether there's enough profit per show to fund the production of new shows.
</p><p>I would imagine that even making less per episode could still net a greater profit on Hulu, since I would also imagine that Hulu is less expensive to operate than television networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it seems to me that it might be that ads cost more to the advertisers , but there are fewer ads and fewer viewers , meaning overall it 's less profitable for the show .
It seems to me that profit per episode for the content owners is a much more important number than cost to advertisers per viewer .
After all , if you 're trying to figure out whether something like Hulu can replace TV networks , the question is whether there 's enough profit per show to fund the production of new shows .
I would imagine that even making less per episode could still net a greater profit on Hulu , since I would also imagine that Hulu is less expensive to operate than television networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it seems to me that it might be that ads cost more to the advertisers, but there are fewer ads and fewer viewers, meaning overall it's less profitable for the show.
It seems to me that profit per episode for the content owners is a much more important number than cost to advertisers per viewer.
After all, if you're trying to figure out whether something like Hulu can replace TV networks, the question is whether there's enough profit per show to fund the production of new shows.
I would imagine that even making less per episode could still net a greater profit on Hulu, since I would also imagine that Hulu is less expensive to operate than television networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492941</id>
	<title>How does this mean a web viewer is worth more?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online, If they sell 37 seconds of ads for $60 per thousand viewers, every viewer is worth $0.06. On TV, the may only get $20 per thousand viewers, but they can charge those $20 from way more people - they have 9 minutes to slot ads in, probably enough for 10 ads at least, so that's $200 per thousand viewers. Or $0.2 per viewer. Which is 3 times more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online , If they sell 37 seconds of ads for $ 60 per thousand viewers , every viewer is worth $ 0.06 .
On TV , the may only get $ 20 per thousand viewers , but they can charge those $ 20 from way more people - they have 9 minutes to slot ads in , probably enough for 10 ads at least , so that 's $ 200 per thousand viewers .
Or $ 0.2 per viewer .
Which is 3 times more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online, If they sell 37 seconds of ads for $60 per thousand viewers, every viewer is worth $0.06.
On TV, the may only get $20 per thousand viewers, but they can charge those $20 from way more people - they have 9 minutes to slot ads in, probably enough for 10 ads at least, so that's $200 per thousand viewers.
Or $0.2 per viewer.
Which is 3 times more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490823</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1246030440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a big factor is that people watching the Simpson's online have a higher disposable income than those watching on television.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a big factor is that people watching the Simpson 's online have a higher disposable income than those watching on television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a big factor is that people watching the Simpson's online have a higher disposable income than those watching on television.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489991</id>
	<title>wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246021500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, people still watch new Simpsons episodes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , people still watch new Simpsons episodes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, people still watch new Simpsons episodes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490347</id>
	<title>Re:Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1246025400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also making the Hulu ad more popular is that it's much easier to target demographic characteristics... instead of buying every viewer in the Boston DMA by getting on WFXT, you can target only viewers in the zip codes in which you have stores and then pay for only the viewers you care about. More bang for the ad buck, so of course Hulu wants its share in that so they charge more in cost-per-1000 viewers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also making the Hulu ad more popular is that it 's much easier to target demographic characteristics... instead of buying every viewer in the Boston DMA by getting on WFXT , you can target only viewers in the zip codes in which you have stores and then pay for only the viewers you care about .
More bang for the ad buck , so of course Hulu wants its share in that so they charge more in cost-per-1000 viewers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also making the Hulu ad more popular is that it's much easier to target demographic characteristics... instead of buying every viewer in the Boston DMA by getting on WFXT, you can target only viewers in the zip codes in which you have stores and then pay for only the viewers you care about.
More bang for the ad buck, so of course Hulu wants its share in that so they charge more in cost-per-1000 viewers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28515367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28498825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28503487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28493309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_2236210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28515367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28503487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490661
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491087
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28493309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28494157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28491033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_2236210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28496075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28489939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28492579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28498825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_2236210.28490263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
