<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_0115251</id>
	<title>Galactic Origin For 62M-Year Extinction Cycle?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246353540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpslibrary.org/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Cosmologist Adrian Mellott has an article in Seed Magazine discussing his search for the <a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the\_extinction\_oscillator/">mechanism behind the mass extinctions in earth's history</a> that seem to occur with a period of about 62 million years. Scientists have identified nearly 20 mass extinctions throughout the fossil record, including the end-Permian event about 250 million years ago that killed off about 95 percent of life on Earth. Mellott notes that as our solar system orbits the Milky Way's center, it oscillates through the galactic plane with a period of around 65 million years. 'The space between galaxies is not empty. It's actually full of rarefied hot gas,' says Mellott. 'As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster, it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave, like the bow shock of a jet plane,' <a href="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Could-the-Next-Mass-Extinction-Be-Close-61299.shtml">generating cascades of high-energy subatomic particles and radiation</a> called 'cosmic rays.' These effects could cause enhanced cloud formation and depletion of the ozone layer, killing off many small organisms at the base of the food chain and potentially leading to a population crash. So where is the earth now in the 62-million year extinction cycle? '[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,' writes Mellott."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Cosmologist Adrian Mellott has an article in Seed Magazine discussing his search for the mechanism behind the mass extinctions in earth 's history that seem to occur with a period of about 62 million years .
Scientists have identified nearly 20 mass extinctions throughout the fossil record , including the end-Permian event about 250 million years ago that killed off about 95 percent of life on Earth .
Mellott notes that as our solar system orbits the Milky Way 's center , it oscillates through the galactic plane with a period of around 65 million years .
'The space between galaxies is not empty .
It 's actually full of rarefied hot gas, ' says Mellott .
'As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster , it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave , like the bow shock of a jet plane, ' generating cascades of high-energy subatomic particles and radiation called 'cosmic rays .
' These effects could cause enhanced cloud formation and depletion of the ozone layer , killing off many small organisms at the base of the food chain and potentially leading to a population crash .
So where is the earth now in the 62-million year extinction cycle ?
' [ W ] e are on the downside of biodiversity , a few million years from hitting bottom, ' writes Mellott .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Cosmologist Adrian Mellott has an article in Seed Magazine discussing his search for the mechanism behind the mass extinctions in earth's history that seem to occur with a period of about 62 million years.
Scientists have identified nearly 20 mass extinctions throughout the fossil record, including the end-Permian event about 250 million years ago that killed off about 95 percent of life on Earth.
Mellott notes that as our solar system orbits the Milky Way's center, it oscillates through the galactic plane with a period of around 65 million years.
'The space between galaxies is not empty.
It's actually full of rarefied hot gas,' says Mellott.
'As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster, it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave, like the bow shock of a jet plane,' generating cascades of high-energy subatomic particles and radiation called 'cosmic rays.
' These effects could cause enhanced cloud formation and depletion of the ozone layer, killing off many small organisms at the base of the food chain and potentially leading to a population crash.
So where is the earth now in the 62-million year extinction cycle?
'[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,' writes Mellott.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526425</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Niven &amp; Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer" started out with a nice description of this happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Niven &amp; Pournelle 's " Lucifer 's Hammer " started out with a nice description of this happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niven &amp; Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer" started out with a nice description of this happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526705</id>
	<title>Re:Heard a similar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the moderator of this post's parent comment.  While he may have been poking fun at some scientists, he's correct that they're human and often overreact to ideas with which they disagree (much like the mod who marked the parent as flamebait).  I too first heard an idea like this 20 or 30 years ago, but what I recall of it was the idea that, as the Solar system passes through the galactic plane, we're inundated with far more dust than while outside it.  Additionally, gravitational tugs from nearby stars (of which there are a lot more when passing through the plane) have a better chance of knocking objects out of the Oort cloud and toward us.  Also, there's always the chance that our sun could gravitationally tug objects from a neighboring star's Oort cloud toward us-- in other words, it's not just one mass of comets we're dealing with in such an event, it's two, plus all the itinerant dust in between.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the moderator of this post 's parent comment .
While he may have been poking fun at some scientists , he 's correct that they 're human and often overreact to ideas with which they disagree ( much like the mod who marked the parent as flamebait ) .
I too first heard an idea like this 20 or 30 years ago , but what I recall of it was the idea that , as the Solar system passes through the galactic plane , we 're inundated with far more dust than while outside it .
Additionally , gravitational tugs from nearby stars ( of which there are a lot more when passing through the plane ) have a better chance of knocking objects out of the Oort cloud and toward us .
Also , there 's always the chance that our sun could gravitationally tug objects from a neighboring star 's Oort cloud toward us-- in other words , it 's not just one mass of comets we 're dealing with in such an event , it 's two , plus all the itinerant dust in between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the moderator of this post's parent comment.
While he may have been poking fun at some scientists, he's correct that they're human and often overreact to ideas with which they disagree (much like the mod who marked the parent as flamebait).
I too first heard an idea like this 20 or 30 years ago, but what I recall of it was the idea that, as the Solar system passes through the galactic plane, we're inundated with far more dust than while outside it.
Additionally, gravitational tugs from nearby stars (of which there are a lot more when passing through the plane) have a better chance of knocking objects out of the Oort cloud and toward us.
Also, there's always the chance that our sun could gravitationally tug objects from a neighboring star's Oort cloud toward us-- in other words, it's not just one mass of comets we're dealing with in such an event, it's two, plus all the itinerant dust in between.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527633</id>
	<title>Re:Examine It For Yourself</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1246373640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know that I'd expect that much consistency.  The actual effects are indirect, cosmic ray flux leads to climate change leads to decreased biodiversity leads to ecological collapse.  I would expect large amounts of variation in the timing in any one of those steps, just due to their chaotic nature.
<br> <br>
So, statistically speaking, the case loosens up quite a bit.  I would need to see more evidence of the mechanisms to be persuaded one way or the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know that I 'd expect that much consistency .
The actual effects are indirect , cosmic ray flux leads to climate change leads to decreased biodiversity leads to ecological collapse .
I would expect large amounts of variation in the timing in any one of those steps , just due to their chaotic nature .
So , statistically speaking , the case loosens up quite a bit .
I would need to see more evidence of the mechanisms to be persuaded one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know that I'd expect that much consistency.
The actual effects are indirect, cosmic ray flux leads to climate change leads to decreased biodiversity leads to ecological collapse.
I would expect large amounts of variation in the timing in any one of those steps, just due to their chaotic nature.
So, statistically speaking, the case loosens up quite a bit.
I would need to see more evidence of the mechanisms to be persuaded one way or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525777</id>
	<title>it's nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's really no need to pan@:P:{}<tt>n o   c a r r i e r</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really no need to pan @ : P : { } n o c a r r i e r</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really no need to pan@:P:{}n o   c a r r i e r</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529255</id>
	<title>Human's not responsible?</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1246380300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?!  I'm outraged!</p><p>Humans are responsible for all bad things!  Humans are not part of nature!  That's what the media tells me.  How dare something else be responsible!  How dare our actions not be as important as we think they are!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? !
I 'm outraged ! Humans are responsible for all bad things !
Humans are not part of nature !
That 's what the media tells me .
How dare something else be responsible !
How dare our actions not be as important as we think they are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?!
I'm outraged!Humans are responsible for all bad things!
Humans are not part of nature!
That's what the media tells me.
How dare something else be responsible!
How dare our actions not be as important as we think they are!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527709</id>
	<title>We've got time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246374000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to build the shield generators that will protect our ancestors from the rarified hot gases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to build the shield generators that will protect our ancestors from the rarified hot gases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to build the shield generators that will protect our ancestors from the rarified hot gases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528687</id>
	<title>Re:Heard a similar</title>
	<author>eyrieowl</author>
	<datestamp>1246378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The grown-up way which involves invoking claims like, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?  I think it's a misunderstanding of science to think that scientists should throw up their hands in glee when someone comes along with a revolutionary idea.  Science depends on a LOT of skepticism.  Scientists wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try to tear new theories to shreds.  If you want to propose new theories and can't handle the scrutiny, either grow up, or find a different profession.  Quite frankly, it's not enough to dream up the right idea, you have to prove it, and you have to make sure other people can prove it to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The grown-up way which involves invoking claims like , " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " ?
I think it 's a misunderstanding of science to think that scientists should throw up their hands in glee when someone comes along with a revolutionary idea .
Science depends on a LOT of skepticism .
Scientists would n't be doing their jobs if they did n't try to tear new theories to shreds .
If you want to propose new theories and ca n't handle the scrutiny , either grow up , or find a different profession .
Quite frankly , it 's not enough to dream up the right idea , you have to prove it , and you have to make sure other people can prove it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The grown-up way which involves invoking claims like, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
I think it's a misunderstanding of science to think that scientists should throw up their hands in glee when someone comes along with a revolutionary idea.
Science depends on a LOT of skepticism.
Scientists wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try to tear new theories to shreds.
If you want to propose new theories and can't handle the scrutiny, either grow up, or find a different profession.
Quite frankly, it's not enough to dream up the right idea, you have to prove it, and you have to make sure other people can prove it to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526177</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days. I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.</p></div><p>Sorry, somebody already thought of that.
<br> <br>
Probably the Simpson's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days .
I 've lost count of the number of 'discoveries ' that are already known , both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.Sorry , somebody already thought of that .
Probably the Simpson 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days.
I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.Sorry, somebody already thought of that.
Probably the Simpson's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526523</id>
	<title>Re:Heard a similar</title>
	<author>CRCulver</author>
	<datestamp>1246367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>theory about 20 years ago. However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Nerds are likely to recognize a similar scenario from Larry Niven's 1966 short story "At the Core" (now in his collection <i> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345381688?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=3636363-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=0345381688" title="amazon.com">Crashlander</a> [amazon.com] </i>), where the stars packed together near the galactic core set off a chain reaction of supernovas that would send a deadly wave of radiation towards the outskirts of the galaxy, killing off all life. Depressing reading.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>theory about 20 years ago .
However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher .
Nerds are likely to recognize a similar scenario from Larry Niven 's 1966 short story " At the Core " ( now in his collection Crashlander [ amazon.com ] ) , where the stars packed together near the galactic core set off a chain reaction of supernovas that would send a deadly wave of radiation towards the outskirts of the galaxy , killing off all life .
Depressing reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theory about 20 years ago.
However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher.
Nerds are likely to recognize a similar scenario from Larry Niven's 1966 short story "At the Core" (now in his collection  Crashlander [amazon.com] ), where the stars packed together near the galactic core set off a chain reaction of supernovas that would send a deadly wave of radiation towards the outskirts of the galaxy, killing off all life.
Depressing reading.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533471</id>
	<title>we're floating down a river not plowing through it</title>
	<author>klossner</author>
	<datestamp>1246394160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>This supercluster is so massive that its gravity pulls our galaxy toward it at a velocity of about 200 kilometers per second.</p></div></blockquote><p>(Huh? Gravity pull is an acceleration, not a velocity.)</p><blockquote><div><p>The space between galaxies is not empty. It's actually full of rarefied hot gas. As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster, it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave, like the bow shock of a jet plane.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't follow this.  If the supercluster is pulling us in, it's also pulling in the intergalactic gas.  We should be flowing along with that gas, not blasting through it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : This supercluster is so massive that its gravity pulls our galaxy toward it at a velocity of about 200 kilometers per second. ( Huh ?
Gravity pull is an acceleration , not a velocity .
) The space between galaxies is not empty .
It 's actually full of rarefied hot gas .
As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster , it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave , like the bow shock of a jet plane.I do n't follow this .
If the supercluster is pulling us in , it 's also pulling in the intergalactic gas .
We should be flowing along with that gas , not blasting through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:This supercluster is so massive that its gravity pulls our galaxy toward it at a velocity of about 200 kilometers per second.(Huh?
Gravity pull is an acceleration, not a velocity.
)The space between galaxies is not empty.
It's actually full of rarefied hot gas.
As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster, it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave, like the bow shock of a jet plane.I don't follow this.
If the supercluster is pulling us in, it's also pulling in the intergalactic gas.
We should be flowing along with that gas, not blasting through it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526621</id>
	<title>Re:Clouds?</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1246368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer, I don't really know.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

A recent paper <a href="http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf" title="uwaterloo.ca" rel="nofollow">shows that this may indeed by the case</a> [uwaterloo.ca]</p><blockquote><div><p>However claiming that CR's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Given that Svensmark's team has been granted an <a href="http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/" title="web.cern.ch" rel="nofollow">experiment slot at CERN</a> [web.cern.ch], at least many of those in the Physics community believe it's a plausible hypothesis.  There is <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib\_query?bibcode=2004GeoRL..3116109U&amp;db\_key=AST&amp;high=4235b0d9e630522" title="harvard.edu" rel="nofollow">research out there demonstrating some causal link between cloud cover and Cosmic Rays.</a> [harvard.edu]  Science is all about reaching beyond what is known.  It would be pretty a pointless exercise otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer , I do n't really know .
A recent paper shows that this may indeed by the case [ uwaterloo.ca ] However claiming that CR 's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known .
Given that Svensmark 's team has been granted an experiment slot at CERN [ web.cern.ch ] , at least many of those in the Physics community believe it 's a plausible hypothesis .
There is research out there demonstrating some causal link between cloud cover and Cosmic Rays .
[ harvard.edu ] Science is all about reaching beyond what is known .
It would be pretty a pointless exercise otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer, I don't really know.
A recent paper shows that this may indeed by the case [uwaterloo.ca]However claiming that CR's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known.
Given that Svensmark's team has been granted an experiment slot at CERN [web.cern.ch], at least many of those in the Physics community believe it's a plausible hypothesis.
There is research out there demonstrating some causal link between cloud cover and Cosmic Rays.
[harvard.edu]  Science is all about reaching beyond what is known.
It would be pretty a pointless exercise otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533967</id>
	<title>Oh No!</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1246353000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will the "<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/0410259/Buzz-Aldrins-Radical-Plan-For-NASA" title="slashdot.org">We Have To Get Off This Rock</a> [slashdot.org] wackjobs react to this? a) they will realize they are utterly out to lunch and give up, or b) they will now stridently insist that not only must humanity magically leave earth, but leave the galaxy as well!
<br>
<br>
You <em>know</em> which one they'll choose...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How will the " We Have To Get Off This Rock [ slashdot.org ] wackjobs react to this ?
a ) they will realize they are utterly out to lunch and give up , or b ) they will now stridently insist that not only must humanity magically leave earth , but leave the galaxy as well !
You know which one they 'll choose.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will the "We Have To Get Off This Rock [slashdot.org] wackjobs react to this?
a) they will realize they are utterly out to lunch and give up, or b) they will now stridently insist that not only must humanity magically leave earth, but leave the galaxy as well!
You know which one they'll choose...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526059</id>
	<title>From a Galactic Origin</title>
	<author>Toutatis</author>
	<datestamp>1246362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this has happened before and will happen again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this has happened before and will happen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this has happened before and will happen again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525785</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every 62 million years, a giant <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">goatse</a> [goatse.fr] monster appears and sucks 95\% of life on this planet into it's anus.</p><p>Better find something strong to hold on to!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every 62 million years , a giant goatse [ goatse.fr ] monster appears and sucks 95 \ % of life on this planet into it 's anus.Better find something strong to hold on to !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every 62 million years, a giant goatse [goatse.fr] monster appears and sucks 95\% of life on this planet into it's anus.Better find something strong to hold on to!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527655</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.</i></p><p>So in other words, it is a new idea, as the one you read about was a different idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.So in other words , it is a new idea , as the one you read about was a different idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.So in other words, it is a new idea, as the one you read about was a different idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525761</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1246357740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>BBC documentary series Horizon, c.late 1980s</htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC documentary series Horizon , c.late 1980s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC documentary series Horizon, c.late 1980s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526279</id>
	<title>So what keeps the globular clusters alive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M94 is about the age of the universe: 13-18Bn years old.</p><p>It is out of the plane of the milky way.</p><p>Yet it still remains a cluster, not shocked apart by its life in the danger zone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M94 is about the age of the universe : 13-18Bn years old.It is out of the plane of the milky way.Yet it still remains a cluster , not shocked apart by its life in the danger zone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M94 is about the age of the universe: 13-18Bn years old.It is out of the plane of the milky way.Yet it still remains a cluster, not shocked apart by its life in the danger zone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532715</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mike is a bit off.  Consider an old saucer sled and set it upside down on a fencepost so that it will balance.  Now imagine a second sled right side up directly under it so that the border ring touches at every point.  Now you have a rough approximation of our galaxy's shape considering the swollen center about the nucleic galactic mega-blackhole and the tapering spiral arms.  Now our 'sol' system is actually alien to the Milky Way galaxy as it is really a member of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that was swallowed up by the Milky Way galaxy eons ago.  As such our system and much of the remainder of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy orbits the Milky Way galactic singularity on a slightly different plane as the rest of the Milky Way galaxy.  To see this more plainly, take a large hula hoop from you old garage and place it over the sled 'assembly'.  Do this considering that the 'milky way' sled planar center of mass is in a plane passing through the ring constituting the place where the 'stacked' border rings meet, and the center of this 'galactic mass' is contained within this plane and at the center of the above described imaginary ring.  The centroid, a complex calculation derived from multivariable calculus and differential equations, will be at this center.  Like wise the hula hoop lies in a plane as well.  Now place the hula hoop so that the planar center of mass plane of the galaxy is in the same plane as that passing through the hula hoop.  This is the ideal end orbit for the constituent stars of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that are here represented by the hula hoop.  But that orbit will not be achieved for billions of years.  Actuall you must tilt the hoop at an angle so the although the centers of both hoop (Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy) and saucer 'assembly' (Milky Way Galaxy) are congruent.  Now you will see that the planes of the two merging galaxies are not the same, meeting at a dihedral angle with the center at the galactic nucleus of the Milky Way Galaxy and the dihedral meeting lines bisecting both galaxies.  Now imagine the hula hoop as three quarters of the diameter of the sleds at this dihedral angle and  you will see that the earth's system will pass through the galactic arms of the Milky Way Galaxy at two points along the dihedral line at opposite sides of the Milky Way Galactic nucleus.  The orbit of the 'sol' system thus passes through the opposite arms of the Milky Way Galaxy twice in every orbit about the Milky Way galactic singularity.  The total orbital period of this orbit is called the 'grand year' and takes about seventy five million years to complete.  Inasmuch as the Milky Way galaxy has its own rotation in its arms, the angular velocity of each arm as a statistical norm may vary inasmuch as this is the real universe and not some dry drawing or fixed sleds on a fencepost.  Therefore, our system will encounter different hazards each time it passes through these semi-hostile interstellar neighborhoods.  The grand year is not to  be confused with movements of our galactic systems as an assembly toward other far larger gravitaional forces that act in far larger timeframes;  and neither is it to be confused with local problems with fellow members of our Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy disturbing the Oort Cloud as Mike has evidently done.  A Dr. Michael Ramphino at a university in New England has said on one of his programs that we are in the center of one of those galactic arms right now, so any seventy five million year periodic disaster that has befallen us before is now on schedule to happen again.  Only Dr. Ramphino said that there is a thirty some odd year periodicity to semi major catastrophes, which would coincide with us passing through one bad neighborhood, and a  sixty to seventy five million year interval between major catastrophic events.  Also there seems a one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty million year cycle as well.  This seems to indicate that one of the arms is really bad, and sometimes super bad things can inhabit either one of our passages through 'neverland'.  Astronomy seems a study in bad billiards or slow dynamics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike is a bit off .
Consider an old saucer sled and set it upside down on a fencepost so that it will balance .
Now imagine a second sled right side up directly under it so that the border ring touches at every point .
Now you have a rough approximation of our galaxy 's shape considering the swollen center about the nucleic galactic mega-blackhole and the tapering spiral arms .
Now our 'sol ' system is actually alien to the Milky Way galaxy as it is really a member of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that was swallowed up by the Milky Way galaxy eons ago .
As such our system and much of the remainder of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy orbits the Milky Way galactic singularity on a slightly different plane as the rest of the Milky Way galaxy .
To see this more plainly , take a large hula hoop from you old garage and place it over the sled 'assembly' .
Do this considering that the 'milky way ' sled planar center of mass is in a plane passing through the ring constituting the place where the 'stacked ' border rings meet , and the center of this 'galactic mass ' is contained within this plane and at the center of the above described imaginary ring .
The centroid , a complex calculation derived from multivariable calculus and differential equations , will be at this center .
Like wise the hula hoop lies in a plane as well .
Now place the hula hoop so that the planar center of mass plane of the galaxy is in the same plane as that passing through the hula hoop .
This is the ideal end orbit for the constituent stars of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that are here represented by the hula hoop .
But that orbit will not be achieved for billions of years .
Actuall you must tilt the hoop at an angle so the although the centers of both hoop ( Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy ) and saucer 'assembly ' ( Milky Way Galaxy ) are congruent .
Now you will see that the planes of the two merging galaxies are not the same , meeting at a dihedral angle with the center at the galactic nucleus of the Milky Way Galaxy and the dihedral meeting lines bisecting both galaxies .
Now imagine the hula hoop as three quarters of the diameter of the sleds at this dihedral angle and you will see that the earth 's system will pass through the galactic arms of the Milky Way Galaxy at two points along the dihedral line at opposite sides of the Milky Way Galactic nucleus .
The orbit of the 'sol ' system thus passes through the opposite arms of the Milky Way Galaxy twice in every orbit about the Milky Way galactic singularity .
The total orbital period of this orbit is called the 'grand year ' and takes about seventy five million years to complete .
Inasmuch as the Milky Way galaxy has its own rotation in its arms , the angular velocity of each arm as a statistical norm may vary inasmuch as this is the real universe and not some dry drawing or fixed sleds on a fencepost .
Therefore , our system will encounter different hazards each time it passes through these semi-hostile interstellar neighborhoods .
The grand year is not to be confused with movements of our galactic systems as an assembly toward other far larger gravitaional forces that act in far larger timeframes ; and neither is it to be confused with local problems with fellow members of our Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy disturbing the Oort Cloud as Mike has evidently done .
A Dr. Michael Ramphino at a university in New England has said on one of his programs that we are in the center of one of those galactic arms right now , so any seventy five million year periodic disaster that has befallen us before is now on schedule to happen again .
Only Dr. Ramphino said that there is a thirty some odd year periodicity to semi major catastrophes , which would coincide with us passing through one bad neighborhood , and a sixty to seventy five million year interval between major catastrophic events .
Also there seems a one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty million year cycle as well .
This seems to indicate that one of the arms is really bad , and sometimes super bad things can inhabit either one of our passages through 'neverland' .
Astronomy seems a study in bad billiards or slow dynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike is a bit off.
Consider an old saucer sled and set it upside down on a fencepost so that it will balance.
Now imagine a second sled right side up directly under it so that the border ring touches at every point.
Now you have a rough approximation of our galaxy's shape considering the swollen center about the nucleic galactic mega-blackhole and the tapering spiral arms.
Now our 'sol' system is actually alien to the Milky Way galaxy as it is really a member of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that was swallowed up by the Milky Way galaxy eons ago.
As such our system and much of the remainder of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy orbits the Milky Way galactic singularity on a slightly different plane as the rest of the Milky Way galaxy.
To see this more plainly, take a large hula hoop from you old garage and place it over the sled 'assembly'.
Do this considering that the 'milky way' sled planar center of mass is in a plane passing through the ring constituting the place where the 'stacked' border rings meet, and the center of this 'galactic mass' is contained within this plane and at the center of the above described imaginary ring.
The centroid, a complex calculation derived from multivariable calculus and differential equations, will be at this center.
Like wise the hula hoop lies in a plane as well.
Now place the hula hoop so that the planar center of mass plane of the galaxy is in the same plane as that passing through the hula hoop.
This is the ideal end orbit for the constituent stars of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy that are here represented by the hula hoop.
But that orbit will not be achieved for billions of years.
Actuall you must tilt the hoop at an angle so the although the centers of both hoop (Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy) and saucer 'assembly' (Milky Way Galaxy) are congruent.
Now you will see that the planes of the two merging galaxies are not the same, meeting at a dihedral angle with the center at the galactic nucleus of the Milky Way Galaxy and the dihedral meeting lines bisecting both galaxies.
Now imagine the hula hoop as three quarters of the diameter of the sleds at this dihedral angle and  you will see that the earth's system will pass through the galactic arms of the Milky Way Galaxy at two points along the dihedral line at opposite sides of the Milky Way Galactic nucleus.
The orbit of the 'sol' system thus passes through the opposite arms of the Milky Way Galaxy twice in every orbit about the Milky Way galactic singularity.
The total orbital period of this orbit is called the 'grand year' and takes about seventy five million years to complete.
Inasmuch as the Milky Way galaxy has its own rotation in its arms, the angular velocity of each arm as a statistical norm may vary inasmuch as this is the real universe and not some dry drawing or fixed sleds on a fencepost.
Therefore, our system will encounter different hazards each time it passes through these semi-hostile interstellar neighborhoods.
The grand year is not to  be confused with movements of our galactic systems as an assembly toward other far larger gravitaional forces that act in far larger timeframes;  and neither is it to be confused with local problems with fellow members of our Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy disturbing the Oort Cloud as Mike has evidently done.
A Dr. Michael Ramphino at a university in New England has said on one of his programs that we are in the center of one of those galactic arms right now, so any seventy five million year periodic disaster that has befallen us before is now on schedule to happen again.
Only Dr. Ramphino said that there is a thirty some odd year periodicity to semi major catastrophes, which would coincide with us passing through one bad neighborhood, and a  sixty to seventy five million year interval between major catastrophic events.
Also there seems a one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty million year cycle as well.
This seems to indicate that one of the arms is really bad, and sometimes super bad things can inhabit either one of our passages through 'neverland'.
Astronomy seems a study in bad billiards or slow dynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526227</id>
	<title>Skeptics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tor the "skeptics" are desparate for anything, anything at all which can be called "science" that can somehow justify continuing to mine and burn coal and avoid investing in environmentally responsible energy policy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tor the " skeptics " are desparate for anything , anything at all which can be called " science " that can somehow justify continuing to mine and burn coal and avoid investing in environmentally responsible energy policy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tor the "skeptics" are desparate for anything, anything at all which can be called "science" that can somehow justify continuing to mine and burn coal and avoid investing in environmentally responsible energy policy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</id>
	<title>What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>Maelwryth</author>
	<datestamp>1246358580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us. Net speed zero. NTICBBRTFA (not that I can be bothered reading the f**king article). I mean, for Christ sakes. Couldn't it be that they had found 62 million years is the average time it takes a super duper virus to mutate. No, we have to be flying into some fucking cloud that just happens to be traveling at a speed in opposition to the rest of the galaxy.....in a few million years........I may have had a few glasses of wine tonight but there is no way I am going to fall for that.<br> <br>What an f**king twit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us .
Net speed zero .
NTICBBRTFA ( not that I can be bothered reading the f * * king article ) .
I mean , for Christ sakes .
Could n't it be that they had found 62 million years is the average time it takes a super duper virus to mutate .
No , we have to be flying into some fucking cloud that just happens to be traveling at a speed in opposition to the rest of the galaxy.....in a few million years........I may have had a few glasses of wine tonight but there is no way I am going to fall for that .
What an f * * king twit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.
Net speed zero.
NTICBBRTFA (not that I can be bothered reading the f**king article).
I mean, for Christ sakes.
Couldn't it be that they had found 62 million years is the average time it takes a super duper virus to mutate.
No, we have to be flying into some fucking cloud that just happens to be traveling at a speed in opposition to the rest of the galaxy.....in a few million years........I may have had a few glasses of wine tonight but there is no way I am going to fall for that.
What an f**king twit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529319</id>
	<title>Five Big Extinctions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Five Big Extinctions were at 65, 206, 251, 364 and 439 million years ago.</p><p>I don't see much of a 62-million year cycle in those extinctions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Five Big Extinctions were at 65 , 206 , 251 , 364 and 439 million years ago.I do n't see much of a 62-million year cycle in those extinctions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Five Big Extinctions were at 65, 206, 251, 364 and 439 million years ago.I don't see much of a 62-million year cycle in those extinctions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</id>
	<title>Not a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago, though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago , though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago, though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531433</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago, though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.</i></p><p>Which was, as it happens, a completely different idea from the one discussed in TFA.</p><p>Do you have any idea how different the scales involved are -- the movements of a few local stars in the scenario you're discussing, vs. the movements of galaxies and clusters of galaxies in this case?  Do you have any understanding that comets, planets, stars, and galaxies are not the same thing?  Or are astronomical terms just so jumbled up in your head that any idea regarding mass extinctions and the movements of anything beyond Earth's atmosphere just kind of seems the same to you?</p><p>I really despise the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. meme that dictates, whenever pretty much any science story is published, that a bunch of posters feel the need to say, "Oh, I heard about that X years ago."  Almost always, they're dead wrong, and their wrongness is based on profound and nigh-aggressive ignorance.  Everyone, before you post that comment or some variant of it, please think for a moment, okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago , though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.Which was , as it happens , a completely different idea from the one discussed in TFA.Do you have any idea how different the scales involved are -- the movements of a few local stars in the scenario you 're discussing , vs. the movements of galaxies and clusters of galaxies in this case ?
Do you have any understanding that comets , planets , stars , and galaxies are not the same thing ?
Or are astronomical terms just so jumbled up in your head that any idea regarding mass extinctions and the movements of anything beyond Earth 's atmosphere just kind of seems the same to you ? I really despise the / .
meme that dictates , whenever pretty much any science story is published , that a bunch of posters feel the need to say , " Oh , I heard about that X years ago .
" Almost always , they 're dead wrong , and their wrongness is based on profound and nigh-aggressive ignorance .
Everyone , before you post that comment or some variant of it , please think for a moment , okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about it in books which must have been published 30 years ago, though I think the theory than was than the gravitational field of passing stars was changing the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud and causing comet impacts.Which was, as it happens, a completely different idea from the one discussed in TFA.Do you have any idea how different the scales involved are -- the movements of a few local stars in the scenario you're discussing, vs. the movements of galaxies and clusters of galaxies in this case?
Do you have any understanding that comets, planets, stars, and galaxies are not the same thing?
Or are astronomical terms just so jumbled up in your head that any idea regarding mass extinctions and the movements of anything beyond Earth's atmosphere just kind of seems the same to you?I really despise the /.
meme that dictates, whenever pretty much any science story is published, that a bunch of posters feel the need to say, "Oh, I heard about that X years ago.
"  Almost always, they're dead wrong, and their wrongness is based on profound and nigh-aggressive ignorance.
Everyone, before you post that comment or some variant of it, please think for a moment, okay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28530875</id>
	<title>Does anyone think it could be related to...</title>
	<author>fabs8611</author>
	<datestamp>1246384860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..the Earth leaving the Sun's heliosphere?

As described in this article a few days ago:
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.700-sun-leaves-earth-wide-open-to-cosmic-rays.html" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.700-sun-leaves-earth-wide-open-to-cosmic-rays.html</a> [newscientist.com]


The (predicted) length of time for a cycle for this event, and the event described in the story is only a single order of magnitude off. Fairly common yet acceptable difference in in the field of Astronomy, I've been told.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..the Earth leaving the Sun 's heliosphere ?
As described in this article a few days ago : http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.700-sun-leaves-earth-wide-open-to-cosmic-rays.html [ newscientist.com ] The ( predicted ) length of time for a cycle for this event , and the event described in the story is only a single order of magnitude off .
Fairly common yet acceptable difference in in the field of Astronomy , I 've been told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..the Earth leaving the Sun's heliosphere?
As described in this article a few days ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.700-sun-leaves-earth-wide-open-to-cosmic-rays.html [newscientist.com]


The (predicted) length of time for a cycle for this event, and the event described in the story is only a single order of magnitude off.
Fairly common yet acceptable difference in in the field of Astronomy, I've been told.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533027</id>
	<title>Past Climate Change Cannot Be Tied to Earth Pass..</title>
	<author>n3v</author>
	<datestamp>1246392120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From universe today:</p><p>Past Climate Change Cannot Be Tied to Earth Passing Through Galactic Plane<br><a href="http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/26/past-climate-change-cannot-be-tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/" title="universetoday.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/26/past-climate-change-cannot-be-tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/</a> [universetoday.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From universe today : Past Climate Change Can not Be Tied to Earth Passing Through Galactic Planehttp : //www.universetoday.com/2009/06/26/past-climate-change-can not-be-tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/ [ universetoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From universe today:Past Climate Change Cannot Be Tied to Earth Passing Through Galactic Planehttp://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/26/past-climate-change-cannot-be-tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/ [universetoday.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533525</id>
	<title>Re:Mayan Calendar</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246394400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012\_doomsday\_prediction" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia is your friend.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is your friend .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is your friend.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526567</id>
	<title>faster pussycat, kill, kill</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,'</p></div></blockquote><p>Ha! With good ol' human ingenuity, I'm sure we can hit bottom a lot faster than that!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>' [ W ] e are on the downside of biodiversity , a few million years from hitting bottom,'Ha !
With good ol ' human ingenuity , I 'm sure we can hit bottom a lot faster than that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,'Ha!
With good ol' human ingenuity, I'm sure we can hit bottom a lot faster than that!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526493</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have always been reinventing the wheel, that is when we haven't had dark ages and lost the wheel in the first place. It just shows the importance of putting knowledge in a context. By all means I'm not saying wikipedia is perfect in content, but the basic idea of hyperlinking up documents to related concepts makes it 1000\% user-friendlier than the dead tree encyclopedias I grew up with.</p><p>We do have a few books like that too, trying to give a bird's eye view of a topic. I remember using one of those in my master's degree, it was 8-900 pages thick, basicly shortly put a topic in context and listed central works. They referenced literally hundreds of works and basicly told us enough to say whether it was relevant or not for the thesis.</p><p>Yes, it's impossible to know the whole width of human knowledge or even within a single field. I think you'd have a helluva time trying to get through the Library of Alexandria, so it's hardly a new thing. But knowing every wheel is different from not finding the one wheel you seek and end up reinventing it. The former is impossible, the latter takes structure.</p><p>And there's a cost to overstructuring. You mention IT as an example - yes, but how long does it also take to find a library that does what you want, is it documented properly, is it of good quality, is it still developed so people will fix issues, can you adapt it to your needs, will upstream want your changes, in short reusing the wheel is not free either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have always been reinventing the wheel , that is when we have n't had dark ages and lost the wheel in the first place .
It just shows the importance of putting knowledge in a context .
By all means I 'm not saying wikipedia is perfect in content , but the basic idea of hyperlinking up documents to related concepts makes it 1000 \ % user-friendlier than the dead tree encyclopedias I grew up with.We do have a few books like that too , trying to give a bird 's eye view of a topic .
I remember using one of those in my master 's degree , it was 8-900 pages thick , basicly shortly put a topic in context and listed central works .
They referenced literally hundreds of works and basicly told us enough to say whether it was relevant or not for the thesis.Yes , it 's impossible to know the whole width of human knowledge or even within a single field .
I think you 'd have a helluva time trying to get through the Library of Alexandria , so it 's hardly a new thing .
But knowing every wheel is different from not finding the one wheel you seek and end up reinventing it .
The former is impossible , the latter takes structure.And there 's a cost to overstructuring .
You mention IT as an example - yes , but how long does it also take to find a library that does what you want , is it documented properly , is it of good quality , is it still developed so people will fix issues , can you adapt it to your needs , will upstream want your changes , in short reusing the wheel is not free either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have always been reinventing the wheel, that is when we haven't had dark ages and lost the wheel in the first place.
It just shows the importance of putting knowledge in a context.
By all means I'm not saying wikipedia is perfect in content, but the basic idea of hyperlinking up documents to related concepts makes it 1000\% user-friendlier than the dead tree encyclopedias I grew up with.We do have a few books like that too, trying to give a bird's eye view of a topic.
I remember using one of those in my master's degree, it was 8-900 pages thick, basicly shortly put a topic in context and listed central works.
They referenced literally hundreds of works and basicly told us enough to say whether it was relevant or not for the thesis.Yes, it's impossible to know the whole width of human knowledge or even within a single field.
I think you'd have a helluva time trying to get through the Library of Alexandria, so it's hardly a new thing.
But knowing every wheel is different from not finding the one wheel you seek and end up reinventing it.
The former is impossible, the latter takes structure.And there's a cost to overstructuring.
You mention IT as an example - yes, but how long does it also take to find a library that does what you want, is it documented properly, is it of good quality, is it still developed so people will fix issues, can you adapt it to your needs, will upstream want your changes, in short reusing the wheel is not free either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526089</id>
	<title>Examine It For Yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Phanerozoic\_biodiversity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">graph of extinctions</a> [wikipedia.org] from the article about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary\_history\_of\_life" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the history of life</a> [wikipedia.org]. I haven't done any actual signal analysis on this data.</p><p> I would buy that there is a bit more energy in the per 62 million years signal, but I wouldn't call it clockwork-like regularity. If they came up with a p-value of 0.01, I'd say that there must be something happening, but I would expect a little more consistency out of a big cosmic event like the one they're describing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at wikipedia 's graph of extinctions [ wikipedia.org ] from the article about the history of life [ wikipedia.org ] .
I have n't done any actual signal analysis on this data .
I would buy that there is a bit more energy in the per 62 million years signal , but I would n't call it clockwork-like regularity .
If they came up with a p-value of 0.01 , I 'd say that there must be something happening , but I would expect a little more consistency out of a big cosmic event like the one they 're describing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at wikipedia's graph of extinctions [wikipedia.org] from the article about the history of life [wikipedia.org].
I haven't done any actual signal analysis on this data.
I would buy that there is a bit more energy in the per 62 million years signal, but I wouldn't call it clockwork-like regularity.
If they came up with a p-value of 0.01, I'd say that there must be something happening, but I would expect a little more consistency out of a big cosmic event like the one they're describing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</id>
	<title>Heard a similar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>theory about 20 years ago.  However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher.  This also explains why occasionally mass extinction skips a beat.  Of course the 2 scientists who postulated this theory were promptly laughed at and ridiculed by the scientific community in that very grown up way that scientists do.</p><p>
Cold fusion anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>theory about 20 years ago .
However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher .
This also explains why occasionally mass extinction skips a beat .
Of course the 2 scientists who postulated this theory were promptly laughed at and ridiculed by the scientific community in that very grown up way that scientists do .
Cold fusion anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theory about 20 years ago.
However that one suggested the reason for the mass extinctions was because the stars in the galactic plane are much closer together so the likely hood of being in close proximity to a supernova and all the incumbent radiation that entails is much higher.
This also explains why occasionally mass extinction skips a beat.
Of course the 2 scientists who postulated this theory were promptly laughed at and ridiculed by the scientific community in that very grown up way that scientists do.
Cold fusion anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525939</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1246360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.</p></div><p>Nice assumption. TFA apparently assumes otherwise. Now I don't know which one of you is right, but at least they did not call people names without even bothering to read their text and without bothering to give any more of an explanation for their opinion other than "I mean, for Christ sakes [sic!]". Which leaves only one fucking twit here, as I see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.Nice assumption .
TFA apparently assumes otherwise .
Now I do n't know which one of you is right , but at least they did not call people names without even bothering to read their text and without bothering to give any more of an explanation for their opinion other than " I mean , for Christ sakes [ sic ! ] " .
Which leaves only one fucking twit here , as I see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.Nice assumption.
TFA apparently assumes otherwise.
Now I don't know which one of you is right, but at least they did not call people names without even bothering to read their text and without bothering to give any more of an explanation for their opinion other than "I mean, for Christ sakes [sic!]".
Which leaves only one fucking twit here, as I see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525783</id>
	<title>I had seen that already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made that observation for myself a long time ago. Large meteor impacts tends to have 32M years interval.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made that observation for myself a long time ago .
Large meteor impacts tends to have 32M years interval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made that observation for myself a long time ago.
Large meteor impacts tends to have 32M years interval.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531675</id>
	<title>20 Million Years Late...</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1246387200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and a dollar short.</p><p>This is twice in a week that someone has made assertions about mass extinctions, and both times their (different) numbers don't match the commonly accepted numbers <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky\_way" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky\_way</a> [wikipedia.org] . (No, the Big W is not necessarily authoritative, but the sources referenced are.)</p><p>The solar system orbits the galactic center in 220 Myr. It oscillates through the galactic plane 2.7 times per orbit. That's a period of 81.5 Myr, and each crossing at half-period being 40.75 Myr. I doubt anyone would consider that an acceptable error margin.</p><p>Furthermore, the matter density in the galactic plane oscillates with a period 1/2 that of the galactic rotation, expanding out from the center in waves (density wave 25 Myr; spiral structure 50 Myr). Passing through the plane would have little effect unless these two coincide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and a dollar short.This is twice in a week that someone has made assertions about mass extinctions , and both times their ( different ) numbers do n't match the commonly accepted numbers http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky \ _way [ wikipedia.org ] .
( No , the Big W is not necessarily authoritative , but the sources referenced are .
) The solar system orbits the galactic center in 220 Myr .
It oscillates through the galactic plane 2.7 times per orbit .
That 's a period of 81.5 Myr , and each crossing at half-period being 40.75 Myr .
I doubt anyone would consider that an acceptable error margin.Furthermore , the matter density in the galactic plane oscillates with a period 1/2 that of the galactic rotation , expanding out from the center in waves ( density wave 25 Myr ; spiral structure 50 Myr ) .
Passing through the plane would have little effect unless these two coincide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and a dollar short.This is twice in a week that someone has made assertions about mass extinctions, and both times their (different) numbers don't match the commonly accepted numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky\_way [wikipedia.org] .
(No, the Big W is not necessarily authoritative, but the sources referenced are.
)The solar system orbits the galactic center in 220 Myr.
It oscillates through the galactic plane 2.7 times per orbit.
That's a period of 81.5 Myr, and each crossing at half-period being 40.75 Myr.
I doubt anyone would consider that an acceptable error margin.Furthermore, the matter density in the galactic plane oscillates with a period 1/2 that of the galactic rotation, expanding out from the center in waves (density wave 25 Myr; spiral structure 50 Myr).
Passing through the plane would have little effect unless these two coincide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527653</id>
	<title>Re:From a Galactic Origin</title>
	<author>dodobh</author>
	<datestamp>1246373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wheel of time turns<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wheel of time turns .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wheel of time turns ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895</id>
	<title>Just no</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The interval between extinctions is 62 million years only if you accept ~30 millions of year of error margin.<br>
The current downfall of biodiversity is really fast compared to the time scale mentioned here. Its most likely reason has two legs, two arms, a big brain and a various set of forest-destroying machines as well as a bad habit of dumping various materials into the ocean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interval between extinctions is 62 million years only if you accept ~ 30 millions of year of error margin .
The current downfall of biodiversity is really fast compared to the time scale mentioned here .
Its most likely reason has two legs , two arms , a big brain and a various set of forest-destroying machines as well as a bad habit of dumping various materials into the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interval between extinctions is 62 million years only if you accept ~30 millions of year of error margin.
The current downfall of biodiversity is really fast compared to the time scale mentioned here.
Its most likely reason has two legs, two arms, a big brain and a various set of forest-destroying machines as well as a bad habit of dumping various materials into the ocean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527481</id>
	<title>Ob.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has all happened before, and it will all happen again...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has all happened before , and it will all happen again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has all happened before, and it will all happen again...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525817</id>
	<title>Its also possible...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its also possible that my opening of a coke can will unsettle the quantum state of the water molecules vaporized in the air consequentially causing a pony to spontaneously appear. But as much as i wish it to be true, it aint going to happen (at least not for a really long time).</p><p>The whole point of the 65 million year cycle was not only the extinctions, but also the discover of elements in the ground only found as a result of asteroid impacts. Tha'ts why researches spend to much time trying to find a large mass that could disturb the Kuiper belt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its also possible that my opening of a coke can will unsettle the quantum state of the water molecules vaporized in the air consequentially causing a pony to spontaneously appear .
But as much as i wish it to be true , it aint going to happen ( at least not for a really long time ) .The whole point of the 65 million year cycle was not only the extinctions , but also the discover of elements in the ground only found as a result of asteroid impacts .
Tha'ts why researches spend to much time trying to find a large mass that could disturb the Kuiper belt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its also possible that my opening of a coke can will unsettle the quantum state of the water molecules vaporized in the air consequentially causing a pony to spontaneously appear.
But as much as i wish it to be true, it aint going to happen (at least not for a really long time).The whole point of the 65 million year cycle was not only the extinctions, but also the discover of elements in the ground only found as a result of asteroid impacts.
Tha'ts why researches spend to much time trying to find a large mass that could disturb the Kuiper belt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528889</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1246378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. <br> <br>
What where you expecting? Field expert reviewed news stories?</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is / .
What where you expecting ?
Field expert reviewed news stories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is /.
What where you expecting?
Field expert reviewed news stories?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526875</id>
	<title>Gamma Ray Bursts Anyone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, that would cause mass extinction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray\_burst]. Though the odds aren't great of one happening.  However, if one considers that galaxies move and collide all the time, then I suppose over the course of Earth's history it's possible that the Earth came really close to a Super Nova at the same time a Gamma Ray burst happened.</p><p>The odds aren't good.</p><p>FYI we get bombarded by Cosmic Rays all the time.</p><p>This guy needs to publish a paper and not "speculate" in  a magazine.  Pseudo Science,  nothing to see here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , that would cause mass extinction [ http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray \ _burst ] .
Though the odds are n't great of one happening .
However , if one considers that galaxies move and collide all the time , then I suppose over the course of Earth 's history it 's possible that the Earth came really close to a Super Nova at the same time a Gamma Ray burst happened.The odds are n't good.FYI we get bombarded by Cosmic Rays all the time.This guy needs to publish a paper and not " speculate " in a magazine .
Pseudo Science , nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, that would cause mass extinction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray\_burst].
Though the odds aren't great of one happening.
However, if one considers that galaxies move and collide all the time, then I suppose over the course of Earth's history it's possible that the Earth came really close to a Super Nova at the same time a Gamma Ray burst happened.The odds aren't good.FYI we get bombarded by Cosmic Rays all the time.This guy needs to publish a paper and not "speculate" in  a magazine.
Pseudo Science,  nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527905</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246375080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never read anything about gases and radiation causing the extinction cycles, I'd be curious to know where everyone has seen this before.  What I have heard is that the same undulating motion of our solar system through the "denser" galactic plane brings us into contact with more asteroids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never read anything about gases and radiation causing the extinction cycles , I 'd be curious to know where everyone has seen this before .
What I have heard is that the same undulating motion of our solar system through the " denser " galactic plane brings us into contact with more asteroids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never read anything about gases and radiation causing the extinction cycles, I'd be curious to know where everyone has seen this before.
What I have heard is that the same undulating motion of our solar system through the "denser" galactic plane brings us into contact with more asteroids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528451</id>
	<title>Old idea: Read "Calculating God" by Sawyer</title>
	<author>KeithH</author>
	<datestamp>1246377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This hypothesis is old and was used as part of the story "Calculating God" written by Robert J. Sawyer in 2000. It's an excellent book which I can heartily recommend. You might also be familiar with his work through the "Hominids" alternate earth trilogy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This hypothesis is old and was used as part of the story " Calculating God " written by Robert J. Sawyer in 2000 .
It 's an excellent book which I can heartily recommend .
You might also be familiar with his work through the " Hominids " alternate earth trilogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This hypothesis is old and was used as part of the story "Calculating God" written by Robert J. Sawyer in 2000.
It's an excellent book which I can heartily recommend.
You might also be familiar with his work through the "Hominids" alternate earth trilogy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529635</id>
	<title>Re:We've got time...</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that will protect our <strong>ancestors</strong> from the rarified hot gases</p></div><p>Wow, shield generators *and* a time machine all in one? Too bad your ancestors will take all the credit...</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that will protect our ancestors from the rarified hot gasesWow , shield generators * and * a time machine all in one ?
Too bad your ancestors will take all the credit...-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that will protect our ancestors from the rarified hot gasesWow, shield generators *and* a time machine all in one?
Too bad your ancestors will take all the credit...-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527213</id>
	<title>Cthulu?</title>
	<author>gijoel</author>
	<datestamp>1246371780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it wasn't radiation that killed off all those critters. Maybe the stars were <i>just</i> right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it was n't radiation that killed off all those critters .
Maybe the stars were just right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it wasn't radiation that killed off all those critters.
Maybe the stars were just right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526467</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1246366800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real question is; and so what if we're gone?</p></div><p>After reading some of the contributions on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I completely agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is ; and so what if we 're gone ? After reading some of the contributions on / .
I completely agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is; and so what if we're gone?After reading some of the contributions on /.
I completely agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526249</id>
	<title>The reapers are coming!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shut down the mass relays!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut down the mass relays !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut down the mass relays!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525937</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1246360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk. Because our orbital inclination around the galactic core is different from other stars in the galaxy we tend to drift above the disc, then we get pulled back by gravity and pop out the bottom of the disc. When we pass through the disc we encounter more objects such as stars and gas clouds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk .
Because our orbital inclination around the galactic core is different from other stars in the galaxy we tend to drift above the disc , then we get pulled back by gravity and pop out the bottom of the disc .
When we pass through the disc we encounter more objects such as stars and gas clouds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk.
Because our orbital inclination around the galactic core is different from other stars in the galaxy we tend to drift above the disc, then we get pulled back by gravity and pop out the bottom of the disc.
When we pass through the disc we encounter more objects such as stars and gas clouds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526845</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1246369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>see also:</i><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Poison\_Belt" title="wikipedia.org">The Poison Belt</a> [wikipedia.org] (Arthur Conan Doyle, 1913)</li>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Black\_Cloud" title="wikipedia.org">The Black Cloud</a> [wikipedia.org] (Fred Hoyle, 1957)</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>see also : The Poison Belt [ wikipedia.org ] ( Arthur Conan Doyle , 1913 ) The Black Cloud [ wikipedia.org ] ( Fred Hoyle , 1957 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see also:
 The Poison Belt [wikipedia.org] (Arthur Conan Doyle, 1913)
 The Black Cloud [wikipedia.org] (Fred Hoyle, 1957)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527967</id>
	<title>Iridium anomaly</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1246375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting idea. But what about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous&amp;\%238364;" title="wikipedia.org">Iridium anomaly</a> [wikipedia.org] then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea .
But what about the Iridium anomaly [ wikipedia.org ] then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea.
But what about the Iridium anomaly [wikipedia.org] then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525781</id>
	<title>So the milky way is falling sunny-side up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from TFA: It turns out that the biodiversity minima of the 62-million- year cycle happens when the Sun is &#226;oebobbed up&#226; on only one side of the galaxy, when the solar system is on the disk&#226;(TM)s upper, &#226;oenorth&#226; side...These [cosmic rays] should be showering the north side of the galaxy&#226;(TM)s disk. We are protected by the galactic magnetic field, much as the Earth&#226;(TM)s magnetic field protects our planet. When we rise to the north side, we are less protected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from TFA : It turns out that the biodiversity minima of the 62-million- year cycle happens when the Sun is   oebobbed up   on only one side of the galaxy , when the solar system is on the disk   ( TM ) s upper ,   oenorth   side...These [ cosmic rays ] should be showering the north side of the galaxy   ( TM ) s disk .
We are protected by the galactic magnetic field , much as the Earth   ( TM ) s magnetic field protects our planet .
When we rise to the north side , we are less protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from TFA: It turns out that the biodiversity minima of the 62-million- year cycle happens when the Sun is âoebobbed upâ on only one side of the galaxy, when the solar system is on the diskâ(TM)s upper, âoenorthâ side...These [cosmic rays] should be showering the north side of the galaxyâ(TM)s disk.
We are protected by the galactic magnetic field, much as the Earthâ(TM)s magnetic field protects our planet.
When we rise to the north side, we are less protected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527421</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>kjllmn</author>
	<datestamp>1246372800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the next thing would be an area of knowledge which deals with precisely this. Not philosophically, but more in terms of optimizing knowledge acquisition and management - or something like that. Or, speaking of reinventing the wheel, perhaps there already is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the next thing would be an area of knowledge which deals with precisely this .
Not philosophically , but more in terms of optimizing knowledge acquisition and management - or something like that .
Or , speaking of reinventing the wheel , perhaps there already is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the next thing would be an area of knowledge which deals with precisely this.
Not philosophically, but more in terms of optimizing knowledge acquisition and management - or something like that.
Or, speaking of reinventing the wheel, perhaps there already is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527587</id>
	<title>gah lak tus</title>
	<author>discogravy</author>
	<datestamp>1246373460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, but where's the silver surfer come to warn of Galactus?

<a href="http://www.yourmomsbasement.com/archives/2006/11/galactus\_is\_com.html" title="yourmomsbasement.com">Maybe Jack Chick was right all along</a> [yourmomsbasement.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but where 's the silver surfer come to warn of Galactus ?
Maybe Jack Chick was right all along [ yourmomsbasement.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but where's the silver surfer come to warn of Galactus?
Maybe Jack Chick was right all along [yourmomsbasement.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528995</id>
	<title>Ohai-Thanks for the mindnumbing oversimplification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Usupported by actual data. If you look at the Phanerozoic biodiversity data, it doesnt validate the 62 million years extinction cycle theory. You cant just take a small subset, selectively ignore data points that don't fit into your theory and preach the end of the world. Admittedly that does seem to sell books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usupported by actual data .
If you look at the Phanerozoic biodiversity data , it doesnt validate the 62 million years extinction cycle theory .
You cant just take a small subset , selectively ignore data points that do n't fit into your theory and preach the end of the world .
Admittedly that does seem to sell books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usupported by actual data.
If you look at the Phanerozoic biodiversity data, it doesnt validate the 62 million years extinction cycle theory.
You cant just take a small subset, selectively ignore data points that don't fit into your theory and preach the end of the world.
Admittedly that does seem to sell books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527469</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246372920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well there will be the damn dirty apes!<br>But they won't give a damn either about us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there will be the damn dirty apes ! But they wo n't give a damn either about us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there will be the damn dirty apes!But they won't give a damn either about us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28535403</id>
	<title>See also: Spider Robinson</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Melancholy Elephants". <a href="http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html" title="spiderrobinson.com">http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html</a> [spiderrobinson.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Melancholy Elephants " .
http : //www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html [ spiderrobinson.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Melancholy Elephants".
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html [spiderrobinson.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529843</id>
	<title>But, we'd all be dead!</title>
	<author>Xenaero</author>
	<datestamp>1246382160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I'm glad that if Mellott is actually correct, I'll be long dead before this actually occurs, kind of like my fervent hopes for the destruction of Earth at the hands of a gigantic meteor. Although, this poses a question. Would you LIKE to be around to see Armageddon, or not? I'm pretty sure you can classify this scenario as Armageddon if it essentially wipes out a huge amount of life on Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm glad that if Mellott is actually correct , I 'll be long dead before this actually occurs , kind of like my fervent hopes for the destruction of Earth at the hands of a gigantic meteor .
Although , this poses a question .
Would you LIKE to be around to see Armageddon , or not ?
I 'm pretty sure you can classify this scenario as Armageddon if it essentially wipes out a huge amount of life on Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm glad that if Mellott is actually correct, I'll be long dead before this actually occurs, kind of like my fervent hopes for the destruction of Earth at the hands of a gigantic meteor.
Although, this poses a question.
Would you LIKE to be around to see Armageddon, or not?
I'm pretty sure you can classify this scenario as Armageddon if it essentially wipes out a huge amount of life on Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528781</id>
	<title>Re:Heard a similar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cold fusion needs to violate the standard model in a big way (D+D-&gt;He4).  Yet we should have an "open mind", but by god you better not question the warming.<br> <br>
Ironically they, and many others that have postulated various flavors of the galactic disk transition causes, have not and are not laughed at by the scientific community.  Where are you getting this? Nexus magazine or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cold fusion needs to violate the standard model in a big way ( D + D- &gt; He4 ) .
Yet we should have an " open mind " , but by god you better not question the warming .
Ironically they , and many others that have postulated various flavors of the galactic disk transition causes , have not and are not laughed at by the scientific community .
Where are you getting this ?
Nexus magazine or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cold fusion needs to violate the standard model in a big way (D+D-&gt;He4).
Yet we should have an "open mind", but by god you better not question the warming.
Ironically they, and many others that have postulated various flavors of the galactic disk transition causes, have not and are not laughed at by the scientific community.
Where are you getting this?
Nexus magazine or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526699</id>
	<title>Adrian Melott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to be anal, but his name is spelled <i> <b>Adrian Melott</b> </i>, with one L.  This spelling will help if you <i>google</i> his name.</p><p>I attend the University of Kansas (where he teaches), and know this guy is associated with some pretty <i>far out</i> ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be anal , but his name is spelled Adrian Melott , with one L. This spelling will help if you google his name.I attend the University of Kansas ( where he teaches ) , and know this guy is associated with some pretty far out ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be anal, but his name is spelled  Adrian Melott , with one L.  This spelling will help if you google his name.I attend the University of Kansas (where he teaches), and know this guy is associated with some pretty far out ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</id>
	<title>Brain full?</title>
	<author>clickclickdrone</author>
	<datestamp>1246360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As others have noticed, this is hardly new. I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days. I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond. It's effectively impossible for people to fully grasp the entire sum of knowledge in their field with the result we're starting to spend time 'reinventing the wheel' to a depressing level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have noticed , this is hardly new .
I 'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days .
I 've lost count of the number of 'discoveries ' that are already known , both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond .
It 's effectively impossible for people to fully grasp the entire sum of knowledge in their field with the result we 're starting to spend time 'reinventing the wheel ' to a depressing level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have noticed, this is hardly new.
I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days.
I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.
It's effectively impossible for people to fully grasp the entire sum of knowledge in their field with the result we're starting to spend time 'reinventing the wheel' to a depressing level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527883</id>
	<title>Re:Clouds?</title>
	<author>rpresser</author>
	<datestamp>1246374960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironic considering cosmic rays were <i>discovered</i> by the use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud\_chamber" title="wikipedia.org">Wilson cloud chambers</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironic considering cosmic rays were discovered by the use of Wilson cloud chambers [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironic considering cosmic rays were discovered by the use of Wilson cloud chambers [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526125</id>
	<title>We're doomed anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well we're all gonna die on December, 21 2012 anyway, so why bother???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well we 're all gon na die on December , 21 2012 anyway , so why bother ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well we're all gonna die on December, 21 2012 anyway, so why bother??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28537891</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days. I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.</p></div><p>Sorry, somebody already thought of that.</p><p>Probably the Simpsons.</p></div><p>*In comic book guys voice*</p><p>Season 10, episode 2, The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace</p><p>"Homer gets to work and develops several inventions, such as an alarm that beeps every three seconds when everything is OK, a shotgun which shoots make-up onto women's faces, a very difficult to control electric hammer, and a reclining chair which has a built-in toilet. But none of these inventions are well received. Feeling despondent over his failure to invent anything useful, his invention career is saved when he reveals he added two hinged legs to a chair making it impossible to tip over backwards. However, his hopes are dashed when he notices his poster of Edison shows his idol sitting in the same type of chair, which indicates Edison has already invented Homer's untippable chair. But Homer also finds out no one else has seen the extra legs on Edison's chair, and thus Edison has never received public credit for inventing it. So he sets out with Bart and his electric hammer to the Edison Museum in New Jersey to destroy the chair. Before he smashes the chair, Homer notices a poster of Edison's which reveals that Edison idolized Leonardo da Vinci in the same way Homer idolizes Edison."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days .
I 've lost count of the number of 'discoveries ' that are already known , both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.Sorry , somebody already thought of that.Probably the Simpsons .
* In comic book guys voice * Season 10 , episode 2 , The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace " Homer gets to work and develops several inventions , such as an alarm that beeps every three seconds when everything is OK , a shotgun which shoots make-up onto women 's faces , a very difficult to control electric hammer , and a reclining chair which has a built-in toilet .
But none of these inventions are well received .
Feeling despondent over his failure to invent anything useful , his invention career is saved when he reveals he added two hinged legs to a chair making it impossible to tip over backwards .
However , his hopes are dashed when he notices his poster of Edison shows his idol sitting in the same type of chair , which indicates Edison has already invented Homer 's untippable chair .
But Homer also finds out no one else has seen the extra legs on Edison 's chair , and thus Edison has never received public credit for inventing it .
So he sets out with Bart and his electric hammer to the Edison Museum in New Jersey to destroy the chair .
Before he smashes the chair , Homer notices a poster of Edison 's which reveals that Edison idolized Leonardo da Vinci in the same way Homer idolizes Edison .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think we just have too much knowledge these days.
I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.Sorry, somebody already thought of that.Probably the Simpsons.
*In comic book guys voice*Season 10, episode 2, The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace"Homer gets to work and develops several inventions, such as an alarm that beeps every three seconds when everything is OK, a shotgun which shoots make-up onto women's faces, a very difficult to control electric hammer, and a reclining chair which has a built-in toilet.
But none of these inventions are well received.
Feeling despondent over his failure to invent anything useful, his invention career is saved when he reveals he added two hinged legs to a chair making it impossible to tip over backwards.
However, his hopes are dashed when he notices his poster of Edison shows his idol sitting in the same type of chair, which indicates Edison has already invented Homer's untippable chair.
But Homer also finds out no one else has seen the extra legs on Edison's chair, and thus Edison has never received public credit for inventing it.
So he sets out with Bart and his electric hammer to the Edison Museum in New Jersey to destroy the chair.
Before he smashes the chair, Homer notices a poster of Edison's which reveals that Edison idolized Leonardo da Vinci in the same way Homer idolizes Edison.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529623</id>
	<title>Not fault of galactic arms</title>
	<author>Nyrath the nearly wi</author>
	<datestamp>1246381440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>Spiral Arms Did Not Cause Climate Change on Earth</strong> </p><p> <em>A new map of the Milky Way galaxy proves that the sun's motion through the spiral arms could not have caused a well-known climate-change cycle.</em> </p><p>

<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23763/" title="technologyreview.com">http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23763/</a> [technologyreview.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spiral Arms Did Not Cause Climate Change on Earth A new map of the Milky Way galaxy proves that the sun 's motion through the spiral arms could not have caused a well-known climate-change cycle .
http : //www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23763/ [ technologyreview.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Spiral Arms Did Not Cause Climate Change on Earth  A new map of the Milky Way galaxy proves that the sun's motion through the spiral arms could not have caused a well-known climate-change cycle.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23763/ [technologyreview.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526441</id>
	<title>awesome</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can't wait to see it in action the next michael bay movie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ca n't wait to see it in action the next michael bay movie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can't wait to see it in action the next michael bay movie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531353</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.</p></div></blockquote><p>Probably pretty close to the same speed, yes.
</p><p>But, alas, not necessarily close to the same <b>velocity</b>.
</p><p>To use a car analogy, two cars going 75 mph are both going the same speed.  If one is eastbound on West Esplanade, and the other northbound on Power, they'll have a velocity differential of over 100 mph when they meet at the intersection of Power and Esplanade...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.Probably pretty close to the same speed , yes .
But , alas , not necessarily close to the same velocity .
To use a car analogy , two cars going 75 mph are both going the same speed .
If one is eastbound on West Esplanade , and the other northbound on Power , they 'll have a velocity differential of over 100 mph when they meet at the intersection of Power and Esplanade.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those gas clouds are probably circulating at the same speed as us.Probably pretty close to the same speed, yes.
But, alas, not necessarily close to the same velocity.
To use a car analogy, two cars going 75 mph are both going the same speed.
If one is eastbound on West Esplanade, and the other northbound on Power, they'll have a velocity differential of over 100 mph when they meet at the intersection of Power and Esplanade...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525911</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1246359960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>you're so f**king right man. this article is f**cking stupid. i get you cause i drank a barrel of wine earlier too. OBVIOUSLY, the gas cloud is orbiting the milky way at 62 million year intervals and we're the ones standing still. IDNTRTFAWIDTBYDE (i don't need to read the f**king article when i'm drunk too because you didn't either)</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're so f * * king right man .
this article is f * * cking stupid .
i get you cause i drank a barrel of wine earlier too .
OBVIOUSLY , the gas cloud is orbiting the milky way at 62 million year intervals and we 're the ones standing still .
IDNTRTFAWIDTBYDE ( i do n't need to read the f * * king article when i 'm drunk too because you did n't either )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're so f**king right man.
this article is f**cking stupid.
i get you cause i drank a barrel of wine earlier too.
OBVIOUSLY, the gas cloud is orbiting the milky way at 62 million year intervals and we're the ones standing still.
IDNTRTFAWIDTBYDE (i don't need to read the f**king article when i'm drunk too because you didn't either)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28545705</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Bat Country</author>
	<datestamp>1246473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming we're not going to be in the surviving 5\%.  Considering a substantial ability to terraform and a relief from ethical concerns regarding GM food stocks (plants and animals) we've got a survivability as a species just under that of the cockroach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming we 're not going to be in the surviving 5 \ % .
Considering a substantial ability to terraform and a relief from ethical concerns regarding GM food stocks ( plants and animals ) we 've got a survivability as a species just under that of the cockroach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming we're not going to be in the surviving 5\%.
Considering a substantial ability to terraform and a relief from ethical concerns regarding GM food stocks (plants and animals) we've got a survivability as a species just under that of the cockroach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>portalcake625</author>
	<datestamp>1246357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real question is; and so what if we're gone?<br>
Not as if there'll be an alien civilization to take over or give a frickin' damn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is ; and so what if we 're gone ?
Not as if there 'll be an alien civilization to take over or give a frickin ' damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is; and so what if we're gone?
Not as if there'll be an alien civilization to take over or give a frickin' damn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28536221</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The galactic plane is nonsense. It is 1 to 62 million light years away. If it was all so encompassing won't we see a insanely super wall of hotter than the sun nebula the edge of the universe per say just how they thought the world was flat that you fall off at the edge of it. Also what is the warp factor of the earth travel at? to the edge of the universe.</p><p>Also if the earth had already passed through it and there has been 20th extinction why is earth the only planet in our solar system that has life on it? While the other planet doesn't see to be affected by its transverse through this plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The galactic plane is nonsense .
It is 1 to 62 million light years away .
If it was all so encompassing wo n't we see a insanely super wall of hotter than the sun nebula the edge of the universe per say just how they thought the world was flat that you fall off at the edge of it .
Also what is the warp factor of the earth travel at ?
to the edge of the universe.Also if the earth had already passed through it and there has been 20th extinction why is earth the only planet in our solar system that has life on it ?
While the other planet does n't see to be affected by its transverse through this plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The galactic plane is nonsense.
It is 1 to 62 million light years away.
If it was all so encompassing won't we see a insanely super wall of hotter than the sun nebula the edge of the universe per say just how they thought the world was flat that you fall off at the edge of it.
Also what is the warp factor of the earth travel at?
to the edge of the universe.Also if the earth had already passed through it and there has been 20th extinction why is earth the only planet in our solar system that has life on it?
While the other planet doesn't see to be affected by its transverse through this plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527921</id>
	<title>CTHULHU FHTAGN!</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1246375140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when the stars are right, the living creatures of Earth all die.  Sounds like it's nearly time for Cthulhu to rise again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when the stars are right , the living creatures of Earth all die .
Sounds like it 's nearly time for Cthulhu to rise again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when the stars are right, the living creatures of Earth all die.
Sounds like it's nearly time for Cthulhu to rise again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526195</id>
	<title>Arthur Conan Doyle...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>had a story that's strangely similar: "The Poison Belt". Except that instead of radiation, it's poisonous aether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>had a story that 's strangely similar : " The Poison Belt " .
Except that instead of radiation , it 's poisonous aether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had a story that's strangely similar: "The Poison Belt".
Except that instead of radiation, it's poisonous aether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529571</id>
	<title>A Paleontologist's Take on This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hrm, I'm only glancing over the article in question, but I was just last week at a conference (North American Paleontological Conference, held in Cincinnati) where this work was presented.</p><p>As others have pointed out, cycles of diversity in the fossil record have been pointed out before, as have cycles in extinction rates. Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski did some very important work in this. However, paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether that cyclicity really exists or not.</p><p>Melott and Bambach (Richard Bambach... a very very important paleoecologist!) presented work at NAPC that they have found the 62 mya cycle in a number of very different datasets of fossil diversity. This is important... it means the signal is very likely to be real.</p><p>I can't speak as to the astronomical mechanism they postulate; in the talk at NAPC, they suggested it might have to do with continental erosion rates (which is related to an idea Bambach has pushed many times before, particularly in a paper entitled "Seafood through Time" in the journal Paleobiology).</p><p>It will be more interesting, as Mike Foote (UChicago) pointed out at NAPC, to see if this cyclicity exists in the seperate origination and extinction rates, the combination of which produce the changes in diversity. Melott and Bambach were not at NAPC however, and the person they asked to substitute for them to present their paper (Eugenie Scott, head of an important science education taskforce) could not speak on the details of their work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrm , I 'm only glancing over the article in question , but I was just last week at a conference ( North American Paleontological Conference , held in Cincinnati ) where this work was presented.As others have pointed out , cycles of diversity in the fossil record have been pointed out before , as have cycles in extinction rates .
Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski did some very important work in this .
However , paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether that cyclicity really exists or not.Melott and Bambach ( Richard Bambach... a very very important paleoecologist !
) presented work at NAPC that they have found the 62 mya cycle in a number of very different datasets of fossil diversity .
This is important... it means the signal is very likely to be real.I ca n't speak as to the astronomical mechanism they postulate ; in the talk at NAPC , they suggested it might have to do with continental erosion rates ( which is related to an idea Bambach has pushed many times before , particularly in a paper entitled " Seafood through Time " in the journal Paleobiology ) .It will be more interesting , as Mike Foote ( UChicago ) pointed out at NAPC , to see if this cyclicity exists in the seperate origination and extinction rates , the combination of which produce the changes in diversity .
Melott and Bambach were not at NAPC however , and the person they asked to substitute for them to present their paper ( Eugenie Scott , head of an important science education taskforce ) could not speak on the details of their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrm, I'm only glancing over the article in question, but I was just last week at a conference (North American Paleontological Conference, held in Cincinnati) where this work was presented.As others have pointed out, cycles of diversity in the fossil record have been pointed out before, as have cycles in extinction rates.
Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski did some very important work in this.
However, paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether that cyclicity really exists or not.Melott and Bambach (Richard Bambach... a very very important paleoecologist!
) presented work at NAPC that they have found the 62 mya cycle in a number of very different datasets of fossil diversity.
This is important... it means the signal is very likely to be real.I can't speak as to the astronomical mechanism they postulate; in the talk at NAPC, they suggested it might have to do with continental erosion rates (which is related to an idea Bambach has pushed many times before, particularly in a paper entitled "Seafood through Time" in the journal Paleobiology).It will be more interesting, as Mike Foote (UChicago) pointed out at NAPC, to see if this cyclicity exists in the seperate origination and extinction rates, the combination of which produce the changes in diversity.
Melott and Bambach were not at NAPC however, and the person they asked to substitute for them to present their paper (Eugenie Scott, head of an important science education taskforce) could not speak on the details of their work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533013</id>
	<title>Re:The reapers are coming!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246392000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's the Vogons. But due to the vast bureucracy the project always seems to be cancelled right as demolition is beginning.</p><p>See? Sometimes bloated, inept, confusing, mismanaged, out of control bureaucracy is a GOOD thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's the Vogons .
But due to the vast bureucracy the project always seems to be cancelled right as demolition is beginning.See ?
Sometimes bloated , inept , confusing , mismanaged , out of control bureaucracy is a GOOD thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's the Vogons.
But due to the vast bureucracy the project always seems to be cancelled right as demolition is beginning.See?
Sometimes bloated, inept, confusing, mismanaged, out of control bureaucracy is a GOOD thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529401</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>reinventing the wheel</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course this is hardly new.  The authors mentioned wrote papers on this years ago.  Scientists are required to research the field before publishing and cite existing articles.  Peer review is used to catch things they might miss.  You act like they are a bunch of fools.  Instead they are working on testing and refining the hypothesis, exactly the way a scientist should.  Don't confuse articles in the popular press with science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>reinventing the wheelOf course this is hardly new .
The authors mentioned wrote papers on this years ago .
Scientists are required to research the field before publishing and cite existing articles .
Peer review is used to catch things they might miss .
You act like they are a bunch of fools .
Instead they are working on testing and refining the hypothesis , exactly the way a scientist should .
Do n't confuse articles in the popular press with science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reinventing the wheelOf course this is hardly new.
The authors mentioned wrote papers on this years ago.
Scientists are required to research the field before publishing and cite existing articles.
Peer review is used to catch things they might miss.
You act like they are a bunch of fools.
Instead they are working on testing and refining the hypothesis, exactly the way a scientist should.
Don't confuse articles in the popular press with science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526675</id>
	<title>Mayan Calendar</title>
	<author>elkto</author>
	<datestamp>1246368660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chime in here with any information on this.
<br> <br>
I was lead to believe at one point that the Mayan Calendar's <i>"Beginning of time/End of time"</i>,
December 21 2012, corresponded to when our Solar System transverses the plane of the Milkway.
<br> <br>
Where these people a few million years off? (Amongst other things)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chime in here with any information on this .
I was lead to believe at one point that the Mayan Calendar 's " Beginning of time/End of time " , December 21 2012 , corresponded to when our Solar System transverses the plane of the Milkway .
Where these people a few million years off ?
( Amongst other things )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chime in here with any information on this.
I was lead to believe at one point that the Mayan Calendar's "Beginning of time/End of time",
December 21 2012, corresponded to when our Solar System transverses the plane of the Milkway.
Where these people a few million years off?
(Amongst other things)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1246373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sun at this point is well over halfway through its yellow-phase lifetime.  Earth only has a few billion more years left to reach whatever culmination it's going to.  There's not really enough time to evolve another species to our level from scratch.  A mere 95\% extinction wouldn't be as bad, but if it's only 60-some-odd million years from now the next sentient species is going to have to make due with dramatically fewer energy reserves left on the planet to bootstrap its civilization.</p><p>In short, if you value sentience we're a pretty valuable resource for the solar system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sun at this point is well over halfway through its yellow-phase lifetime .
Earth only has a few billion more years left to reach whatever culmination it 's going to .
There 's not really enough time to evolve another species to our level from scratch .
A mere 95 \ % extinction would n't be as bad , but if it 's only 60-some-odd million years from now the next sentient species is going to have to make due with dramatically fewer energy reserves left on the planet to bootstrap its civilization.In short , if you value sentience we 're a pretty valuable resource for the solar system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sun at this point is well over halfway through its yellow-phase lifetime.
Earth only has a few billion more years left to reach whatever culmination it's going to.
There's not really enough time to evolve another species to our level from scratch.
A mere 95\% extinction wouldn't be as bad, but if it's only 60-some-odd million years from now the next sentient species is going to have to make due with dramatically fewer energy reserves left on the planet to bootstrap its civilization.In short, if you value sentience we're a pretty valuable resource for the solar system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526391</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1246366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk.</p> </div><p>OCIADBTRTFA (Of course I also didn't bother to read the f**king article), but what the hell has the Discworld to do with this???</p><p>What if the Great A'tuin would change course? Huh? We wouldn't even know, because we're not ON the f**king Discworld. It's fiction.</p><p>[/deliberately off-topic]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk .
OCIADBTRTFA ( Of course I also did n't bother to read the f * * king article ) , but what the hell has the Discworld to do with this ? ?
? What if the Great A'tuin would change course ?
Huh ? We would n't even know , because we 're not ON the f * * king Discworld .
It 's fiction .
[ /deliberately off-topic ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about the motion of our star relative to the disk.
OCIADBTRTFA (Of course I also didn't bother to read the f**king article), but what the hell has the Discworld to do with this??
?What if the Great A'tuin would change course?
Huh? We wouldn't even know, because we're not ON the f**king Discworld.
It's fiction.
[/deliberately off-topic]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527695</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246373940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As others have noticed, this is hardly new. </i></p><p>Citation needed?</p><p>The other posts have simply been ideas related to a galatic cycle, but claimed a different cause to what is discussed in TFA. We have a word for "same theory, except for this and this and this" - we call it "different".</p><p><i>I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond. </i></p><p>Well come on then, let's have some examples?</p><p>Whilst it's not inconceivable that researchers may overlap in their work without realising it, I find it hard to believe that a cosmologists is unaware of something that is apparently common knowledge on a random Internet forum...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have noticed , this is hardly new .
Citation needed ? The other posts have simply been ideas related to a galatic cycle , but claimed a different cause to what is discussed in TFA .
We have a word for " same theory , except for this and this and this " - we call it " different " .I 've lost count of the number of 'discoveries ' that are already known , both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond .
Well come on then , let 's have some examples ? Whilst it 's not inconceivable that researchers may overlap in their work without realising it , I find it hard to believe that a cosmologists is unaware of something that is apparently common knowledge on a random Internet forum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have noticed, this is hardly new.
Citation needed?The other posts have simply been ideas related to a galatic cycle, but claimed a different cause to what is discussed in TFA.
We have a word for "same theory, except for this and this and this" - we call it "different".I've lost count of the number of 'discoveries' that are already known, both in IT and the wider areas of science and beyond.
Well come on then, let's have some examples?Whilst it's not inconceivable that researchers may overlap in their work without realising it, I find it hard to believe that a cosmologists is unaware of something that is apparently common knowledge on a random Internet forum...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526507</id>
	<title>Re:Clouds?</title>
	<author>e2ka</author>
	<datestamp>1246367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html" title="web.cern.ch">This</a> [web.cern.ch] should help our understanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ web.cern.ch ] should help our understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [web.cern.ch] should help our understanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765</id>
	<title>Clouds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer, I don't really know. However <a href="http://slashdot.org/~TapeCutter/journal/224921" title="slashdot.org">claiming that CR's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer , I do n't really know .
However claiming that CR 's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer, I don't really know.
However claiming that CR's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529803</id>
	<title>Re:Just no</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1246382040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, so we're about due for another mass extinction, according to the theory.<p>
Hopefully, it'll hold off until I've had my coffee...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so we 're about due for another mass extinction , according to the theory .
Hopefully , it 'll hold off until I 've had my coffee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so we're about due for another mass extinction, according to the theory.
Hopefully, it'll hold off until I've had my coffee...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528181</id>
	<title>Re:Just no</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really flamebait to say that humans are the most likely cause of biodiversity downfall ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really flamebait to say that humans are the most likely cause of biodiversity downfall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really flamebait to say that humans are the most likely cause of biodiversity downfall ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527827</id>
	<title>Well damn</title>
	<author>CaseM</author>
	<datestamp>1246374660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess that means no Duke Nukem Forever this time around. Hopefully they'll time-capsule the source, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess that means no Duke Nukem Forever this time around .
Hopefully they 'll time-capsule the source , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess that means no Duke Nukem Forever this time around.
Hopefully they'll time-capsule the source, at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529493</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1246381080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, you're right. We should just go ahead and stop trying to invent things, perhaps even close down the patent office. Surely everything that can be invented already has been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you 're right .
We should just go ahead and stop trying to invent things , perhaps even close down the patent office .
Surely everything that can be invented already has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you're right.
We should just go ahead and stop trying to invent things, perhaps even close down the patent office.
Surely everything that can be invented already has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532985</id>
	<title>Only One Question Matters</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1246391880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only one question matters: when is the next one due?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one question matters : when is the next one due ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one question matters: when is the next one due?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745</id>
	<title>Deflation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yesterday there was the same story, except it was 150 million years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yesterday there was the same story , except it was 150 million years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yesterday there was the same story, except it was 150 million years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532835</id>
	<title>Variety</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1246391340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already know why one extinction event happened.  The current one is caused by us.  These leads me to believe that there may be some variety in causes of mass extinctions, and that no single theory will cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already know why one extinction event happened .
The current one is caused by us .
These leads me to believe that there may be some variety in causes of mass extinctions , and that no single theory will cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already know why one extinction event happened.
The current one is caused by us.
These leads me to believe that there may be some variety in causes of mass extinctions, and that no single theory will cut it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526119</id>
	<title>extinction...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,' writes Mellott</p></div><p>I totally agree with that assumption, though I personally think Adrian Mellott should have left out "the few million" part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ W ] e are on the downside of biodiversity , a few million years from hitting bottom, ' writes MellottI totally agree with that assumption , though I personally think Adrian Mellott should have left out " the few million " part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[W]e are on the downside of biodiversity, a few million years from hitting bottom,' writes MellottI totally agree with that assumption, though I personally think Adrian Mellott should have left out "the few million" part.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525929</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its actually the Infinite Improbability Drive in action. Research my ass.

Before you ask any more questions, 42.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its actually the Infinite Improbability Drive in action .
Research my ass .
Before you ask any more questions , 42 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its actually the Infinite Improbability Drive in action.
Research my ass.
Before you ask any more questions, 42.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526715</id>
	<title>Re:Brain full?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hardly new"?  Well, yes and no.  It's hardly new because ideas about periodicity of extinctions have been proposed before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and found to be statistically bogus (as the article mentions, originally people were suggesting a 26Ma periodicity).  It's hardly new because the idea that galactic cycles could affect the Earth's climate significantly has been proposed before too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and found to be pretty weak compared to the effects of asteroid impacts, very large volcanic eruptions and the slow reorganization of continental positions and ocean currents, for which there is much clearer evidence in the Earth's geology.  Some of the biggest mass extinctions (e.g., the Cretaceous/Tertiary and the Permian/Triassic) are clearly associated with these sorts of events.  Increased cosmic rays?  Oh, please.  Life would hardly notice.   That's hardly much of an effect compared to the biggest known asteroid impact in the last 200Ma or so (the Cretaceous/Tertiary one on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico), or areas of flood basalt volcanism that are cover areas a third the size of Australia (associated with both the Cretaceous/Tertiary and Permian/Triassic). What "new" is that anybody bothered to resurrect the idea, but I guess there is a cyclicity to old ideas too.</p><p>While the record has improved a lot, I'm still doubtful that this study is any more valid than the earlier ones.<br>Extinctions don't have to be cyclic, and the proposed mechanism for causing them is poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hardly new " ?
Well , yes and no .
It 's hardly new because ideas about periodicity of extinctions have been proposed before ... and found to be statistically bogus ( as the article mentions , originally people were suggesting a 26Ma periodicity ) .
It 's hardly new because the idea that galactic cycles could affect the Earth 's climate significantly has been proposed before too ... and found to be pretty weak compared to the effects of asteroid impacts , very large volcanic eruptions and the slow reorganization of continental positions and ocean currents , for which there is much clearer evidence in the Earth 's geology .
Some of the biggest mass extinctions ( e.g. , the Cretaceous/Tertiary and the Permian/Triassic ) are clearly associated with these sorts of events .
Increased cosmic rays ?
Oh , please .
Life would hardly notice .
That 's hardly much of an effect compared to the biggest known asteroid impact in the last 200Ma or so ( the Cretaceous/Tertiary one on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico ) , or areas of flood basalt volcanism that are cover areas a third the size of Australia ( associated with both the Cretaceous/Tertiary and Permian/Triassic ) .
What " new " is that anybody bothered to resurrect the idea , but I guess there is a cyclicity to old ideas too.While the record has improved a lot , I 'm still doubtful that this study is any more valid than the earlier ones.Extinctions do n't have to be cyclic , and the proposed mechanism for causing them is poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hardly new"?
Well, yes and no.
It's hardly new because ideas about periodicity of extinctions have been proposed before ... and found to be statistically bogus (as the article mentions, originally people were suggesting a 26Ma periodicity).
It's hardly new because the idea that galactic cycles could affect the Earth's climate significantly has been proposed before too ... and found to be pretty weak compared to the effects of asteroid impacts, very large volcanic eruptions and the slow reorganization of continental positions and ocean currents, for which there is much clearer evidence in the Earth's geology.
Some of the biggest mass extinctions (e.g., the Cretaceous/Tertiary and the Permian/Triassic) are clearly associated with these sorts of events.
Increased cosmic rays?
Oh, please.
Life would hardly notice.
That's hardly much of an effect compared to the biggest known asteroid impact in the last 200Ma or so (the Cretaceous/Tertiary one on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico), or areas of flood basalt volcanism that are cover areas a third the size of Australia (associated with both the Cretaceous/Tertiary and Permian/Triassic).
What "new" is that anybody bothered to resurrect the idea, but I guess there is a cyclicity to old ideas too.While the record has improved a lot, I'm still doubtful that this study is any more valid than the earlier ones.Extinctions don't have to be cyclic, and the proposed mechanism for causing them is poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525905</id>
	<title>Re:What a f**king dick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Us passing some gas clouds every 62 million years can't explain those extinctions.<br>I am passing gas way much more frequently than that without any major damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us passing some gas clouds every 62 million years ca n't explain those extinctions.I am passing gas way much more frequently than that without any major damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us passing some gas clouds every 62 million years can't explain those extinctions.I am passing gas way much more frequently than that without any major damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28539179</id>
	<title>i will be in my</title>
	<author>chris.evans</author>
	<datestamp>1246390140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>space ship snug and safe from the interstellar soup dust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>space ship snug and safe from the interstellar soup dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>space ship snug and safe from the interstellar soup dust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28535403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28536221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28545705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28537891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_0115251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28535403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28537891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28545705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28536221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28532715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28531433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28528687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28529319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28527883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28525783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28533013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_0115251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_0115251.28526227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
