<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_1438227</id>
	<title>States Push Makers' Role In Disposing of Electronic Waste</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246374120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:aaronrparsons@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">AaronParsons</a> writes <i>"An interesting NY Times article describes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/earth/30ewaste.html?pagewanted=1&amp;\_r=1&amp;hp">currently available programs for post-consumer electronics</a>.  One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AaronParsons writes " An interesting NY Times article describes currently available programs for post-consumer electronics .
One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer : 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup , it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AaronParsons writes "An interesting NY Times article describes currently available programs for post-consumer electronics.
One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528865</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RePC also makes money <i>selling</i> the metal and other things that come out of electronics. And considering the price of commodities (i.e. all those materials that make up electronics), they're making a nice living <i>without</i> having to charge you. Yes, I am fully aware that the PCBs have to be disposed of because, as far as I know, there's no second hand market for those. And, are you sure that they are disposing of those materials correctly? Who audits them?</p><p> Here's the problem: recycling will never really take off until it stops being a luxury. Poor or cheap folks who want to recycle won't because they have to <b>pay out of pocket</b> to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RePC also makes money selling the metal and other things that come out of electronics .
And considering the price of commodities ( i.e .
all those materials that make up electronics ) , they 're making a nice living without having to charge you .
Yes , I am fully aware that the PCBs have to be disposed of because , as far as I know , there 's no second hand market for those .
And , are you sure that they are disposing of those materials correctly ?
Who audits them ?
Here 's the problem : recycling will never really take off until it stops being a luxury .
Poor or cheap folks who want to recycle wo n't because they have to pay out of pocket to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RePC also makes money selling the metal and other things that come out of electronics.
And considering the price of commodities (i.e.
all those materials that make up electronics), they're making a nice living without having to charge you.
Yes, I am fully aware that the PCBs have to be disposed of because, as far as I know, there's no second hand market for those.
And, are you sure that they are disposing of those materials correctly?
Who audits them?
Here's the problem: recycling will never really take off until it stops being a luxury.
Poor or cheap folks who want to recycle won't because they have to pay out of pocket to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529479</id>
	<title>Recycling by manufacturer</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1246381020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple will take any of their old hardware off your hands and recycle it/dispose of it correctly- just drop it off at an Apple Store. If you're trying to dispose of an old iPod, they'll give you a discount towards the purchase of a new one. Apparently they also recycle stuff from other manufacturers if you buy a new replacement item from them.
</p><p>
Amazon also has a recycling program available for their Kindles- you mail it in and they take care of it from there.
</p><p>
I'm pretty sure Sony has a similar program for their many electronics offerings.
</p><p>
I personally would only take advantage of these programs if the device in question was completely borked. An old iPod or computer can be resold easily enough on craigslist or eBay, but a nonfunctional one is just junk, and I have enough of that in my house as it is.
</p><p>
Some links:
<br>http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/
<br>http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200197550
<br>http://www.panasonic.com/environmental/recycling-electronic.asp
<br>http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10&amp;storeId=10151&amp;langId=-1&amp;categoryId=8198552921644513777</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will take any of their old hardware off your hands and recycle it/dispose of it correctly- just drop it off at an Apple Store .
If you 're trying to dispose of an old iPod , they 'll give you a discount towards the purchase of a new one .
Apparently they also recycle stuff from other manufacturers if you buy a new replacement item from them .
Amazon also has a recycling program available for their Kindles- you mail it in and they take care of it from there .
I 'm pretty sure Sony has a similar program for their many electronics offerings .
I personally would only take advantage of these programs if the device in question was completely borked .
An old iPod or computer can be resold easily enough on craigslist or eBay , but a nonfunctional one is just junk , and I have enough of that in my house as it is .
Some links : http : //www.apple.com/environment/recycling/ http : //www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html ? nodeId = 200197550 http : //www.panasonic.com/environmental/recycling-electronic.asp http : //www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay ? catalogId = 10&amp;storeId = 10151&amp;langId = -1&amp;categoryId = 8198552921644513777</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will take any of their old hardware off your hands and recycle it/dispose of it correctly- just drop it off at an Apple Store.
If you're trying to dispose of an old iPod, they'll give you a discount towards the purchase of a new one.
Apparently they also recycle stuff from other manufacturers if you buy a new replacement item from them.
Amazon also has a recycling program available for their Kindles- you mail it in and they take care of it from there.
I'm pretty sure Sony has a similar program for their many electronics offerings.
I personally would only take advantage of these programs if the device in question was completely borked.
An old iPod or computer can be resold easily enough on craigslist or eBay, but a nonfunctional one is just junk, and I have enough of that in my house as it is.
Some links:
http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200197550
http://www.panasonic.com/environmental/recycling-electronic.asp
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10&amp;storeId=10151&amp;langId=-1&amp;categoryId=8198552921644513777</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529189</id>
	<title>Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!</title>
	<author>multimediavt</author>
	<datestamp>1246380120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no "tree hugger", but the overall idea makes perfect logical sense. Your argument that the new "Owner" of the product should be held responsible leads back to the buyer beware attitude. The company producing the product *MUST* be held accountable for the environmental impacts the product has. This is not a "tree hugger" issue any longer. This is about the quality of the environment and ecosystem that the human race needs to sustain itself and how unchecked population growth and consumerism is affecting it.</p><p>I'm sorry, but making the disposal of a product that contains toxic or environmentally harmful components the sole responsibility of the consumer is patently irresponsible. It is also irresponsible for a company to knowingly produce a product that contains difficult to dispose of (safely) components and provide no guidance or assistance to the consumer. It may be easy for a person living in a metro area the size of Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas or Atlanta to find a firm that recycles electronics waste, but for a large segment of the population there aren't such facilities nearby or they are unknown because they don't advertise well.  Disposing of these products in landfills is not acceptable, unless you are planning on starting a business in the future to mine landfills for precious commodities and mitigate the toxins in them. Let me know how that turns out for you.</p><p>Your entitled to your own opinions on this subject, but be prepared to defend them if they are clearly self-serving, ignorant or otherwise indifferent to the well being of us all. The bottom line is we can't keep operating the way we have been and everyone--including big corporations, governments and private citizens--needs to be more responsible. If you think the taxes to do this will be steep, just imagine the penalties for not doing this. Look beyond your own nose, backyard, five minutes into the future, etc. This disposable everything mentality has got to stop, folks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no " tree hugger " , but the overall idea makes perfect logical sense .
Your argument that the new " Owner " of the product should be held responsible leads back to the buyer beware attitude .
The company producing the product * MUST * be held accountable for the environmental impacts the product has .
This is not a " tree hugger " issue any longer .
This is about the quality of the environment and ecosystem that the human race needs to sustain itself and how unchecked population growth and consumerism is affecting it.I 'm sorry , but making the disposal of a product that contains toxic or environmentally harmful components the sole responsibility of the consumer is patently irresponsible .
It is also irresponsible for a company to knowingly produce a product that contains difficult to dispose of ( safely ) components and provide no guidance or assistance to the consumer .
It may be easy for a person living in a metro area the size of Seattle , Los Angeles , Dallas or Atlanta to find a firm that recycles electronics waste , but for a large segment of the population there are n't such facilities nearby or they are unknown because they do n't advertise well .
Disposing of these products in landfills is not acceptable , unless you are planning on starting a business in the future to mine landfills for precious commodities and mitigate the toxins in them .
Let me know how that turns out for you.Your entitled to your own opinions on this subject , but be prepared to defend them if they are clearly self-serving , ignorant or otherwise indifferent to the well being of us all .
The bottom line is we ca n't keep operating the way we have been and everyone--including big corporations , governments and private citizens--needs to be more responsible .
If you think the taxes to do this will be steep , just imagine the penalties for not doing this .
Look beyond your own nose , backyard , five minutes into the future , etc .
This disposable everything mentality has got to stop , folks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no "tree hugger", but the overall idea makes perfect logical sense.
Your argument that the new "Owner" of the product should be held responsible leads back to the buyer beware attitude.
The company producing the product *MUST* be held accountable for the environmental impacts the product has.
This is not a "tree hugger" issue any longer.
This is about the quality of the environment and ecosystem that the human race needs to sustain itself and how unchecked population growth and consumerism is affecting it.I'm sorry, but making the disposal of a product that contains toxic or environmentally harmful components the sole responsibility of the consumer is patently irresponsible.
It is also irresponsible for a company to knowingly produce a product that contains difficult to dispose of (safely) components and provide no guidance or assistance to the consumer.
It may be easy for a person living in a metro area the size of Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas or Atlanta to find a firm that recycles electronics waste, but for a large segment of the population there aren't such facilities nearby or they are unknown because they don't advertise well.
Disposing of these products in landfills is not acceptable, unless you are planning on starting a business in the future to mine landfills for precious commodities and mitigate the toxins in them.
Let me know how that turns out for you.Your entitled to your own opinions on this subject, but be prepared to defend them if they are clearly self-serving, ignorant or otherwise indifferent to the well being of us all.
The bottom line is we can't keep operating the way we have been and everyone--including big corporations, governments and private citizens--needs to be more responsible.
If you think the taxes to do this will be steep, just imagine the penalties for not doing this.
Look beyond your own nose, backyard, five minutes into the future, etc.
This disposable everything mentality has got to stop, folks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532257</id>
	<title>Re:This is a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer. When buying a new item, virtually all consumers don't take into account the cost of disposal, but it still needs to be paid.</i> </p><p>And it <b>IS</b> paid by me the consumer with my municipal waste fees.  If you buy my used car for $1, then its disposal is your fucking problem.  If you buy my new car for $100,000, same fucking deal.  If we need to nudge people in the right direction for this reason or that, then whatever.   But don't pretend like you know dick about "externalities".  You don't.  A true externality would be the noise of the manufacturing facility.  That is trivial.  With a transfer of ownership, the item's disposal has no externality as that is 100\% the responsibility of the purchaser (who may create externalities themselves).  Just because it is a cost not paid by the manufacturer, does not make it an externality.  Fucking morons here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , product waste is an " externality " - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer .
When buying a new item , virtually all consumers do n't take into account the cost of disposal , but it still needs to be paid .
And it IS paid by me the consumer with my municipal waste fees .
If you buy my used car for $ 1 , then its disposal is your fucking problem .
If you buy my new car for $ 100,000 , same fucking deal .
If we need to nudge people in the right direction for this reason or that , then whatever .
But do n't pretend like you know dick about " externalities " .
You do n't .
A true externality would be the noise of the manufacturing facility .
That is trivial .
With a transfer of ownership , the item 's disposal has no externality as that is 100 \ % the responsibility of the purchaser ( who may create externalities themselves ) .
Just because it is a cost not paid by the manufacturer , does not make it an externality .
Fucking morons here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.
When buying a new item, virtually all consumers don't take into account the cost of disposal, but it still needs to be paid.
And it IS paid by me the consumer with my municipal waste fees.
If you buy my used car for $1, then its disposal is your fucking problem.
If you buy my new car for $100,000, same fucking deal.
If we need to nudge people in the right direction for this reason or that, then whatever.
But don't pretend like you know dick about "externalities".
You don't.
A true externality would be the noise of the manufacturing facility.
That is trivial.
With a transfer of ownership, the item's disposal has no externality as that is 100\% the responsibility of the purchaser (who may create externalities themselves).
Just because it is a cost not paid by the manufacturer, does not make it an externality.
Fucking morons here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28541225</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>LuYu</author>
	<datestamp>1246457640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Your attitude is hardly Libertarian.  If the premise of Libertariansim is -- as every one says -- to allow any given individual to do whatever that individual wants as long as it does not harm another individual or another individual's property, then it should be fairly obvious that <b>poisoning everybody else or the Earth</b> -- from which we all derive our food, lives, and property -- is <b>violating other people's rights</b>.  If you own a factory and it spews noxious gasses that poison a neighbouring town and even one person dies, are you guilty of murder?  Is it Libertarian to allow this?
</p><p>
I honestly cannot see where this Libertarian ideal can claim poisoning villages in China is not a crime.  Poisoning people <b>is</b> harming them.  Polluting their land <b>is</b> harming their property.  Just because they live half way around the world does not make them any less human.
</p><p>
How does poisoning the world and potentially harming everyone fit into this picture?  Even good Libertarians must see that in cases where everyone is involved, like global air and water supplies, individuals who pollute <b>are</b> harming people <b>and</b> their property.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your attitude is hardly Libertarian .
If the premise of Libertariansim is -- as every one says -- to allow any given individual to do whatever that individual wants as long as it does not harm another individual or another individual 's property , then it should be fairly obvious that poisoning everybody else or the Earth -- from which we all derive our food , lives , and property -- is violating other people 's rights .
If you own a factory and it spews noxious gasses that poison a neighbouring town and even one person dies , are you guilty of murder ?
Is it Libertarian to allow this ?
I honestly can not see where this Libertarian ideal can claim poisoning villages in China is not a crime .
Poisoning people is harming them .
Polluting their land is harming their property .
Just because they live half way around the world does not make them any less human .
How does poisoning the world and potentially harming everyone fit into this picture ?
Even good Libertarians must see that in cases where everyone is involved , like global air and water supplies , individuals who pollute are harming people and their property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Your attitude is hardly Libertarian.
If the premise of Libertariansim is -- as every one says -- to allow any given individual to do whatever that individual wants as long as it does not harm another individual or another individual's property, then it should be fairly obvious that poisoning everybody else or the Earth -- from which we all derive our food, lives, and property -- is violating other people's rights.
If you own a factory and it spews noxious gasses that poison a neighbouring town and even one person dies, are you guilty of murder?
Is it Libertarian to allow this?
I honestly cannot see where this Libertarian ideal can claim poisoning villages in China is not a crime.
Poisoning people is harming them.
Polluting their land is harming their property.
Just because they live half way around the world does not make them any less human.
How does poisoning the world and potentially harming everyone fit into this picture?
Even good Libertarians must see that in cases where everyone is involved, like global air and water supplies, individuals who pollute are harming people and their property.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello Democrats, goodbye personal responsibility.<br>Next up, the price of a Big Mac goes up as McDonald's is forced to pay for municipal sewage processing.<br>More laws, bigger government, higher taxes, fewer freedoms.</p><p>Think Libertarian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello Democrats , goodbye personal responsibility.Next up , the price of a Big Mac goes up as McDonald 's is forced to pay for municipal sewage processing.More laws , bigger government , higher taxes , fewer freedoms.Think Libertarian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello Democrats, goodbye personal responsibility.Next up, the price of a Big Mac goes up as McDonald's is forced to pay for municipal sewage processing.More laws, bigger government, higher taxes, fewer freedoms.Think Libertarian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529503</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml</p><p>Here is often where that stuff ends up in.  Some place in rural china with monitors stacked up into shear walls.  Toxic levels in the water 190x the WHO limits and water has to be brought in.  Burning plastic and pouring acid to extract trace amounts of gold.  This isn't the only site out there either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtmlHere is often where that stuff ends up in .
Some place in rural china with monitors stacked up into shear walls .
Toxic levels in the water 190x the WHO limits and water has to be brought in .
Burning plastic and pouring acid to extract trace amounts of gold .
This is n't the only site out there either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtmlHere is often where that stuff ends up in.
Some place in rural china with monitors stacked up into shear walls.
Toxic levels in the water 190x the WHO limits and water has to be brought in.
Burning plastic and pouring acid to extract trace amounts of gold.
This isn't the only site out there either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528877</id>
	<title>Require MFG to tax the consumer for the state</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1246378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is what it really means.  So the state doesn't want to be liable for what is in their landfills and as such passes the responsibility onto manufacturers because the state cannot go after every consumer but can damn well go after a manufacture.  As such costs go up as everyone pays for the small percentage of people tossing stuff wrongly.</p><p>It is an easy sale for governments, big bad evil companies versus poor little school children drinking polluted water.</p><p>Just like the deposit tax on bottles, we all pay it, but who benefits?  Supposedly all of us, but who gets the money and who benefits by it not being done?</p><p>I have no problem with manufactures being encouraged to make cleaner products,  I do have a problem by the lies foisted onto the public how its the manufacturers responsibility to ensure disposal of the device after its use.  How long before the disposal becomes a requirement by law?  These laws can eventually turned into a system where all we do is lease everything we use because the manufacture can use government mandates stating that product "X" must be turned in NOW because the state claims that something about it doesn't fit current environmental laws, all at the behest of some good lobbying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is what it really means .
So the state does n't want to be liable for what is in their landfills and as such passes the responsibility onto manufacturers because the state can not go after every consumer but can damn well go after a manufacture .
As such costs go up as everyone pays for the small percentage of people tossing stuff wrongly.It is an easy sale for governments , big bad evil companies versus poor little school children drinking polluted water.Just like the deposit tax on bottles , we all pay it , but who benefits ?
Supposedly all of us , but who gets the money and who benefits by it not being done ? I have no problem with manufactures being encouraged to make cleaner products , I do have a problem by the lies foisted onto the public how its the manufacturers responsibility to ensure disposal of the device after its use .
How long before the disposal becomes a requirement by law ?
These laws can eventually turned into a system where all we do is lease everything we use because the manufacture can use government mandates stating that product " X " must be turned in NOW because the state claims that something about it does n't fit current environmental laws , all at the behest of some good lobbying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is what it really means.
So the state doesn't want to be liable for what is in their landfills and as such passes the responsibility onto manufacturers because the state cannot go after every consumer but can damn well go after a manufacture.
As such costs go up as everyone pays for the small percentage of people tossing stuff wrongly.It is an easy sale for governments, big bad evil companies versus poor little school children drinking polluted water.Just like the deposit tax on bottles, we all pay it, but who benefits?
Supposedly all of us, but who gets the money and who benefits by it not being done?I have no problem with manufactures being encouraged to make cleaner products,  I do have a problem by the lies foisted onto the public how its the manufacturers responsibility to ensure disposal of the device after its use.
How long before the disposal becomes a requirement by law?
These laws can eventually turned into a system where all we do is lease everything we use because the manufacture can use government mandates stating that product "X" must be turned in NOW because the state claims that something about it doesn't fit current environmental laws, all at the behest of some good lobbying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528689</id>
	<title>Paradigm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that we're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm. Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate, not just the makers of soda cans &amp; computers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that we 're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm .
Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate , not just the makers of soda cans &amp; computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that we're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm.
Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate, not just the makers of soda cans &amp; computers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703</id>
	<title>Every product needs this</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1246378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products?  The only downside I see is higher prices, but I think the motivation companies have of cutting costs  would benefit the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this be a good idea for all products ?
The only downside I see is higher prices , but I think the motivation companies have of cutting costs would benefit the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products?
The only downside I see is higher prices, but I think the motivation companies have of cutting costs  would benefit the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777</id>
	<title>Crush and recycle, what am I missing?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea seems solid, tell me what I'm missing.</p><p>So we have a pile of old laptops that we need to recycle. We dump them in one of those industrial shredders that reduce them to powder. We run the powder through centrifuges to separate the pieces by weight. This part's probably the really, really complicated bit but the end result is purified feedstock to put back into the manufacturing process. Here's the aluminum, here's the old bits of plastic, and so forth.</p><p>Obviously, if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it already, they wouldn't be going out to get fresh feedstock. So, I take it the crushing and separating just isn't economical yet? Or is it not even quite technically possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea seems solid , tell me what I 'm missing.So we have a pile of old laptops that we need to recycle .
We dump them in one of those industrial shredders that reduce them to powder .
We run the powder through centrifuges to separate the pieces by weight .
This part 's probably the really , really complicated bit but the end result is purified feedstock to put back into the manufacturing process .
Here 's the aluminum , here 's the old bits of plastic , and so forth.Obviously , if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it already , they would n't be going out to get fresh feedstock .
So , I take it the crushing and separating just is n't economical yet ?
Or is it not even quite technically possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea seems solid, tell me what I'm missing.So we have a pile of old laptops that we need to recycle.
We dump them in one of those industrial shredders that reduce them to powder.
We run the powder through centrifuges to separate the pieces by weight.
This part's probably the really, really complicated bit but the end result is purified feedstock to put back into the manufacturing process.
Here's the aluminum, here's the old bits of plastic, and so forth.Obviously, if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it already, they wouldn't be going out to get fresh feedstock.
So, I take it the crushing and separating just isn't economical yet?
Or is it not even quite technically possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529003</id>
	<title>Re:This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>m0s3m8n</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right on the spot.  Responsibility is on the owner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on the spot .
Responsibility is on the owner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on the spot.
Responsibility is on the owner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28540261</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>sydbarrett74</author>
	<datestamp>1246448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason many are looking to Uncle Sam is not so much for control/management, but more for a single regulatory regime rather than hundreds of different and inconsistent statutes and ordinances. Something like the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), but for electronics recycling, would benefit the industry and consumers alike. <br> <br>And for those pedants out there, I'm aware that the UCC was a joint effort of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws  and the American Law Institute rather than being strictly federal in origin, but you get my point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason many are looking to Uncle Sam is not so much for control/management , but more for a single regulatory regime rather than hundreds of different and inconsistent statutes and ordinances .
Something like the UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) , but for electronics recycling , would benefit the industry and consumers alike .
And for those pedants out there , I 'm aware that the UCC was a joint effort of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute rather than being strictly federal in origin , but you get my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason many are looking to Uncle Sam is not so much for control/management, but more for a single regulatory regime rather than hundreds of different and inconsistent statutes and ordinances.
Something like the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), but for electronics recycling, would benefit the industry and consumers alike.
And for those pedants out there, I'm aware that the UCC was a joint effort of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws  and the American Law Institute rather than being strictly federal in origin, but you get my point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529819</id>
	<title>Re:This is a great idea</title>
	<author>Exoman</author>
	<datestamp>1246382100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.  </p></div><p>Yeah, externalities, essentially, dumping your dog's crap in your neighbor's yard hoping they won't notice.</p><p> <a href="http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle\_to\_cradle.htm" title="mcdonough.com" rel="nofollow">Cradle-to-cradle</a> [mcdonough.com] describes the process of designing for full lifecyle.  McDonough distinguishes "re-cycling" from "down-cycling" the process we generally use today that recycles plastics such at PET into playground equipment and fleece.</p><p> Designing for re-use, disassembly, and re-use gives companies such as <a href="http://www.interfaceglobal.com/" title="interfaceglobal.com" rel="nofollow">Interface</a> [interfaceglobal.com] a competitive advantage while reducing externalities.</p><p>Free markets can be good at this, but externalities must be internalize, or it is simply not a free market.  This is a valid role for governments, working to ensure a level playing field that doesn't give anyone an unfair right to abuse the commons.  Once that level playing field is established, eliminating perverse subsidies, smart companies *will* go to more cradle-to-cradle designs because it makes great sense on so many levels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , product waste is an " externality " - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer .
Yeah , externalities , essentially , dumping your dog 's crap in your neighbor 's yard hoping they wo n't notice .
Cradle-to-cradle [ mcdonough.com ] describes the process of designing for full lifecyle .
McDonough distinguishes " re-cycling " from " down-cycling " the process we generally use today that recycles plastics such at PET into playground equipment and fleece .
Designing for re-use , disassembly , and re-use gives companies such as Interface [ interfaceglobal.com ] a competitive advantage while reducing externalities.Free markets can be good at this , but externalities must be internalize , or it is simply not a free market .
This is a valid role for governments , working to ensure a level playing field that does n't give anyone an unfair right to abuse the commons .
Once that level playing field is established , eliminating perverse subsidies , smart companies * will * go to more cradle-to-cradle designs because it makes great sense on so many levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.
Yeah, externalities, essentially, dumping your dog's crap in your neighbor's yard hoping they won't notice.
Cradle-to-cradle [mcdonough.com] describes the process of designing for full lifecyle.
McDonough distinguishes "re-cycling" from "down-cycling" the process we generally use today that recycles plastics such at PET into playground equipment and fleece.
Designing for re-use, disassembly, and re-use gives companies such as Interface [interfaceglobal.com] a competitive advantage while reducing externalities.Free markets can be good at this, but externalities must be internalize, or it is simply not a free market.
This is a valid role for governments, working to ensure a level playing field that doesn't give anyone an unfair right to abuse the commons.
Once that level playing field is established, eliminating perverse subsidies, smart companies *will* go to more cradle-to-cradle designs because it makes great sense on so many levels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</id>
	<title>This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You tree huggers can vote me down all you want but, you know that this is bullshit!</p><p>Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags? GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?</p><p>Sure it sounds great to you because it doesn't inconvenience you, yet. I suppose that you will continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of this until you yourself are held responsible for something that you create and sell on but, must recycle years later.</p><p>The company has sold the product to a new owner. The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal! Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You tree huggers can vote me down all you want but , you know that this is bullshit ! Where does this BS end ?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags ?
GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars ? Sure it sounds great to you because it does n't inconvenience you , yet .
I suppose that you will continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of this until you yourself are held responsible for something that you create and sell on but , must recycle years later.The company has sold the product to a new owner .
The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal !
Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You tree huggers can vote me down all you want but, you know that this is bullshit!Where does this BS end?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?
GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?Sure it sounds great to you because it doesn't inconvenience you, yet.
I suppose that you will continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of this until you yourself are held responsible for something that you create and sell on but, must recycle years later.The company has sold the product to a new owner.
The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal!
Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529031</id>
	<title>This already is law in the EU</title>
	<author>quax</author>
	<datestamp>1246379400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/activities/recycle/europe/index.html" title="sony.net">Manufactures already have programs</a> [sony.net] to take back their junk in order to comply with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste\_Electrical\_and\_Electronic\_Equipment\_Directive" title="wikipedia.org">WEEE EU directive</a> [wikipedia.org].  This has been law now for more than 5 years. Rather than discussing this idea as something theoretical lawmakers in the US would be well advised to study if an how this works in Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manufactures already have programs [ sony.net ] to take back their junk in order to comply with the WEEE EU directive [ wikipedia.org ] .
This has been law now for more than 5 years .
Rather than discussing this idea as something theoretical lawmakers in the US would be well advised to study if an how this works in Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manufactures already have programs [sony.net] to take back their junk in order to comply with the WEEE EU directive [wikipedia.org].
This has been law now for more than 5 years.
Rather than discussing this idea as something theoretical lawmakers in the US would be well advised to study if an how this works in Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28537773</id>
	<title>Re:This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246374720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The company has sold the product to a new owner. The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal! Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.</p></div><p>No shit Sherlock. But this is about making products that are more recyclable in the first place, not about having the company come and collect your trash. Way to miss the point there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The company has sold the product to a new owner .
The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal !
Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.No shit Sherlock .
But this is about making products that are more recyclable in the first place , not about having the company come and collect your trash .
Way to miss the point there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company has sold the product to a new owner.
The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal!
Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.No shit Sherlock.
But this is about making products that are more recyclable in the first place, not about having the company come and collect your trash.
Way to miss the point there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528855</id>
	<title>earth is a closed loop system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to start treating it like one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to start treating it like one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to start treating it like one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529161</id>
	<title>Nature's Way:  Composition and Decomposition</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1246379940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nature has processes that compose and decompose living things.  For example, sex produces a Slashdotter.  The Slashdotter consumes the food of nature, grows, and matures. After the Slashdotter dies, we bury him in a forest without a coffin.  Bacteria will decompose his body.  Wild animals may smell the body, dig it up, and feed on it.  The Slashdotter came from the dust, and he will return to the dust.
<p>
Now, compare that process to the man-made process of building, say, a computer.  From the dust, we assembles a computer.  After it becomes old and useless, we bury it in a landfill.  The computer does not decompose and does not return to the dust.  Worse, some of the junk that we bury in these landfills actually poison the land.
</p><p>
Clearly, man-made processes contain only 1 part of the 2-part process.  That 1 part is the composition.  Man-made processes have traditionally not involved decomposition.
</p><p>
In order for us to be truly "green", we should mimic nature and should always use a 2-part process: composition and decomposition.  Each product that we buy must be designed to facilitate the often neglected 2nd part:  decomposition.  Of course, we, as consumers, should pay the full cost of both parts.  Right now, we typically pay just the 1st part: composition.  Indeed, the ultra-cheap $600 computer produced by slave labor in China would likely cost $1200 if we included the cost of decomposition.
</p><p>
This issue is not mere idle philosophy.  When we finally exhaust all the available copper  and other metals in the mines, we must dig up all the crap in the landfills and recycle it to extract the metals.  This recycling is the aforementioned decomposition.  We eventually must pay the cost of decomposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature has processes that compose and decompose living things .
For example , sex produces a Slashdotter .
The Slashdotter consumes the food of nature , grows , and matures .
After the Slashdotter dies , we bury him in a forest without a coffin .
Bacteria will decompose his body .
Wild animals may smell the body , dig it up , and feed on it .
The Slashdotter came from the dust , and he will return to the dust .
Now , compare that process to the man-made process of building , say , a computer .
From the dust , we assembles a computer .
After it becomes old and useless , we bury it in a landfill .
The computer does not decompose and does not return to the dust .
Worse , some of the junk that we bury in these landfills actually poison the land .
Clearly , man-made processes contain only 1 part of the 2-part process .
That 1 part is the composition .
Man-made processes have traditionally not involved decomposition .
In order for us to be truly " green " , we should mimic nature and should always use a 2-part process : composition and decomposition .
Each product that we buy must be designed to facilitate the often neglected 2nd part : decomposition .
Of course , we , as consumers , should pay the full cost of both parts .
Right now , we typically pay just the 1st part : composition .
Indeed , the ultra-cheap $ 600 computer produced by slave labor in China would likely cost $ 1200 if we included the cost of decomposition .
This issue is not mere idle philosophy .
When we finally exhaust all the available copper and other metals in the mines , we must dig up all the crap in the landfills and recycle it to extract the metals .
This recycling is the aforementioned decomposition .
We eventually must pay the cost of decomposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature has processes that compose and decompose living things.
For example, sex produces a Slashdotter.
The Slashdotter consumes the food of nature, grows, and matures.
After the Slashdotter dies, we bury him in a forest without a coffin.
Bacteria will decompose his body.
Wild animals may smell the body, dig it up, and feed on it.
The Slashdotter came from the dust, and he will return to the dust.
Now, compare that process to the man-made process of building, say, a computer.
From the dust, we assembles a computer.
After it becomes old and useless, we bury it in a landfill.
The computer does not decompose and does not return to the dust.
Worse, some of the junk that we bury in these landfills actually poison the land.
Clearly, man-made processes contain only 1 part of the 2-part process.
That 1 part is the composition.
Man-made processes have traditionally not involved decomposition.
In order for us to be truly "green", we should mimic nature and should always use a 2-part process: composition and decomposition.
Each product that we buy must be designed to facilitate the often neglected 2nd part:  decomposition.
Of course, we, as consumers, should pay the full cost of both parts.
Right now, we typically pay just the 1st part: composition.
Indeed, the ultra-cheap $600 computer produced by slave labor in China would likely cost $1200 if we included the cost of decomposition.
This issue is not mere idle philosophy.
When we finally exhaust all the available copper  and other metals in the mines, we must dig up all the crap in the landfills and recycle it to extract the metals.
This recycling is the aforementioned decomposition.
We eventually must pay the cost of decomposition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721</id>
	<title>How the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"</p> </div><p>

How the crap do you do that? Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end. So what is Intel to do? Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market? Heck, most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch. Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer : 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup , it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life .
' " How the crap do you do that ?
Lets see , Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7 , however within 3 years , that CPU will be considered mid to low end .
So what is Intel to do ?
Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market ?
Heck , most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch .
Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.
'" 

How the crap do you do that?
Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end.
So what is Intel to do?
Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market?
Heck, most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch.
Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28542429</id>
	<title>Re:How the?</title>
	<author>LuYu</author>
	<datestamp>1246463520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How the crap do you do that? Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end.</p></div><p>
Well, maybe if Intel were not colluding with MS to trick people into believing that 3 year old computers were obsolete, this problem might not exist.  Intel wants to sell processors, so they deliberately create the illusion of obsolescence to accelerate the upgrade cycle.  In truth, anything that is fast enough to play DVDs (any computer faster than about 5~700MHz for i386 processors) is fast enough for the average user.  But people are still conned into the "faster == better" mentality.
</p><p>
So, if they were not purposefully trying to make their older products obsolete, I would totally agree, but as <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1287199&amp;cid=28528983" title="slashdot.org">a poster above said</a> [slashdot.org]:  "Yea, a lot of crap makes it past the three year mark, but most of it is DESIGNED to be thrown out. i.e. they are engineering waste."  He was right on.  Intel is "engineering waste", and they should pay for it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the crap do you do that ?
Lets see , Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7 , however within 3 years , that CPU will be considered mid to low end .
Well , maybe if Intel were not colluding with MS to trick people into believing that 3 year old computers were obsolete , this problem might not exist .
Intel wants to sell processors , so they deliberately create the illusion of obsolescence to accelerate the upgrade cycle .
In truth , anything that is fast enough to play DVDs ( any computer faster than about 5 ~ 700MHz for i386 processors ) is fast enough for the average user .
But people are still conned into the " faster = = better " mentality .
So , if they were not purposefully trying to make their older products obsolete , I would totally agree , but as a poster above said [ slashdot.org ] : " Yea , a lot of crap makes it past the three year mark , but most of it is DESIGNED to be thrown out .
i.e. they are engineering waste .
" He was right on .
Intel is " engineering waste " , and they should pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the crap do you do that?
Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end.
Well, maybe if Intel were not colluding with MS to trick people into believing that 3 year old computers were obsolete, this problem might not exist.
Intel wants to sell processors, so they deliberately create the illusion of obsolescence to accelerate the upgrade cycle.
In truth, anything that is fast enough to play DVDs (any computer faster than about 5~700MHz for i386 processors) is fast enough for the average user.
But people are still conned into the "faster == better" mentality.
So, if they were not purposefully trying to make their older products obsolete, I would totally agree, but as a poster above said [slashdot.org]:  "Yea, a lot of crap makes it past the three year mark, but most of it is DESIGNED to be thrown out.
i.e. they are engineering waste.
"  He was right on.
Intel is "engineering waste", and they should pay for it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529737</id>
	<title>Re:Crush and recycle, what am I missing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obviously, if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it already</p></div></blockquote><p>You forget that most companies think in short term profits because MBAs are too greedy and often too stupid to think in long term. A recycling plant is, on the other hand, although quite profitable, is a long term investment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it alreadyYou forget that most companies think in short term profits because MBAs are too greedy and often too stupid to think in long term .
A recycling plant is , on the other hand , although quite profitable , is a long term investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, if this were really cheap and economical the companies would be doing it alreadyYou forget that most companies think in short term profits because MBAs are too greedy and often too stupid to think in long term.
A recycling plant is, on the other hand, although quite profitable, is a long term investment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529243</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g. social security)</i></p><p>Wrong. The federal government has taken 2.4 trillion dollars *from* social security between 1984 and 2006 for use in normal day to day operations. SS is still running a surplus today.</p><p>I understand from your post that you don't like SS, but your claim is simply wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 'll go spend it elsewhere ( e.g .
social security ) Wrong .
The federal government has taken 2.4 trillion dollars * from * social security between 1984 and 2006 for use in normal day to day operations .
SS is still running a surplus today.I understand from your post that you do n't like SS , but your claim is simply wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g.
social security)Wrong.
The federal government has taken 2.4 trillion dollars *from* social security between 1984 and 2006 for use in normal day to day operations.
SS is still running a surplus today.I understand from your post that you don't like SS, but your claim is simply wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875</id>
	<title>Re:This is a great idea</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1246378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.  When buying a new item, virtually all consumers don't take into account the cost of disposal, but it still needs to be paid.</p><p>Making the manufacturers responsible for recycling/disposal of their products means that they will need to increase their price to the consumer, thereby showing the true cost of the product at purchase time.</p><p>BTW, I'm told New Zealand currently has a similar law (for all products, not just electronics), and it works quite well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , product waste is an " externality " - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer .
When buying a new item , virtually all consumers do n't take into account the cost of disposal , but it still needs to be paid.Making the manufacturers responsible for recycling/disposal of their products means that they will need to increase their price to the consumer , thereby showing the true cost of the product at purchase time.BTW , I 'm told New Zealand currently has a similar law ( for all products , not just electronics ) , and it works quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.
When buying a new item, virtually all consumers don't take into account the cost of disposal, but it still needs to be paid.Making the manufacturers responsible for recycling/disposal of their products means that they will need to increase their price to the consumer, thereby showing the true cost of the product at purchase time.BTW, I'm told New Zealand currently has a similar law (for all products, not just electronics), and it works quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528989</id>
	<title>A hope for durability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this would encourage factories to keep producing something that could handle some beatings. Just like my current Nokia 3310. I've lost count of how many mobiles my friends have changed because their old ones are dead (like, one dead every year or two). I missed the old days where things are built to last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this would encourage factories to keep producing something that could handle some beatings .
Just like my current Nokia 3310 .
I 've lost count of how many mobiles my friends have changed because their old ones are dead ( like , one dead every year or two ) .
I missed the old days where things are built to last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this would encourage factories to keep producing something that could handle some beatings.
Just like my current Nokia 3310.
I've lost count of how many mobiles my friends have changed because their old ones are dead (like, one dead every year or two).
I missed the old days where things are built to last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531057</id>
	<title>Re:Every product needs this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246385340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.</i></p><p>What if product is never disposed of or the price of disposal drops in the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front , rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product 's useful life.What if product is never disposed of or the price of disposal drops in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.What if product is never disposed of or the price of disposal drops in the future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528851</id>
	<title>Old Hardware?</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1246378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People throw their old hardware away?</p><p>Sheesh. I still have a couple of 300 meg drives sitting around for posterity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People throw their old hardware away ? Sheesh .
I still have a couple of 300 meg drives sitting around for posterity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People throw their old hardware away?Sheesh.
I still have a couple of 300 meg drives sitting around for posterity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529127</id>
	<title>Lack Of Thought Sinks Nation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, it's easy to not think about it and blame the mean old corporations. It's not my fault that I bought a computer and now regard it as garbage. It's the manufacturer's fault, right? They should be responsible. Plus I don;t want to spend mY money disposing of this "garbage".</p><p>Think for just a micro second. Please! What do you think the manufacturers are going to do? They are going to raise the price of their products to cover the cost. Then they are going to add an addition "disposal fee" or tax. You are going to pay for it and thanks to legislation you'll pay way more than if you simply recycled it your self.</p><p>This is DUMB but, the epidemic lack of thought will sink this nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , it 's easy to not think about it and blame the mean old corporations .
It 's not my fault that I bought a computer and now regard it as garbage .
It 's the manufacturer 's fault , right ?
They should be responsible .
Plus I don ; t want to spend mY money disposing of this " garbage " .Think for just a micro second .
Please ! What do you think the manufacturers are going to do ?
They are going to raise the price of their products to cover the cost .
Then they are going to add an addition " disposal fee " or tax .
You are going to pay for it and thanks to legislation you 'll pay way more than if you simply recycled it your self.This is DUMB but , the epidemic lack of thought will sink this nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, it's easy to not think about it and blame the mean old corporations.
It's not my fault that I bought a computer and now regard it as garbage.
It's the manufacturer's fault, right?
They should be responsible.
Plus I don;t want to spend mY money disposing of this "garbage".Think for just a micro second.
Please! What do you think the manufacturers are going to do?
They are going to raise the price of their products to cover the cost.
Then they are going to add an addition "disposal fee" or tax.
You are going to pay for it and thanks to legislation you'll pay way more than if you simply recycled it your self.This is DUMB but, the epidemic lack of thought will sink this nation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529327</id>
	<title>Might force elimination of Obsolescence by design</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1246380540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is what it takes to return the United States to a proper service economy instead of the rampant consumerism we've had forced down our throats for the last 30+ years, then I'm all for it because I'd personally be willing to spend a bit more for a product that can be repaired easily and that doesn't fall apart the day after the warranty expires unlike the crap I've seen for the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is what it takes to return the United States to a proper service economy instead of the rampant consumerism we 've had forced down our throats for the last 30 + years , then I 'm all for it because I 'd personally be willing to spend a bit more for a product that can be repaired easily and that does n't fall apart the day after the warranty expires unlike the crap I 've seen for the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is what it takes to return the United States to a proper service economy instead of the rampant consumerism we've had forced down our throats for the last 30+ years, then I'm all for it because I'd personally be willing to spend a bit more for a product that can be repaired easily and that doesn't fall apart the day after the warranty expires unlike the crap I've seen for the last decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532485</id>
	<title>Re:Every product needs this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No, the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer. The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.</i> </p><p>So I will be earning credits that reduce my municipal waste disposal fees?  No, then I guess you are full of shit.  This is yet one more reason why shit is not being made in the USA and we have to import so much crap.  This is a bullshit power grab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it 's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer .
The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front , rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product 's useful life .
So I will be earning credits that reduce my municipal waste disposal fees ?
No , then I guess you are full of shit .
This is yet one more reason why shit is not being made in the USA and we have to import so much crap .
This is a bullshit power grab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer.
The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.
So I will be earning credits that reduce my municipal waste disposal fees?
No, then I guess you are full of shit.
This is yet one more reason why shit is not being made in the USA and we have to import so much crap.
This is a bullshit power grab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531427</id>
	<title>Re:Already in Europe(tm)</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years. Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.</p></div><p>How do they know that you have any electronics to dispose of? Or is it a matter of if you don't dispose of any electronics in the proper way you pay more, whether you actually dispose of any electronics or not?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , this has been common in Europe for some years .
Also , where I live , if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.How do they know that you have any electronics to dispose of ?
Or is it a matter of if you do n't dispose of any electronics in the proper way you pay more , whether you actually dispose of any electronics or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years.
Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.How do they know that you have any electronics to dispose of?
Or is it a matter of if you don't dispose of any electronics in the proper way you pay more, whether you actually dispose of any electronics or not?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529403</id>
	<title>Goodbye "Disposable" Generation</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1246380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a lot of money in recycling - the industry continues to grow.  Don't tell me that this effort needs to cost anybody anything aside a few extra acres for a new company with new jobs. Anything else is an excuse for raping the public in some nefariously placed capitalistic manner. <br>
<br>
Further, as a people, we have every-right to mandate laws that will help reduce the waste stream and provide a better quality of live for our citizens.  Its not big government - its clean air and water so we don't die via poisoning ourselves.  There is no room for the big-government argument here.  Mandate recyclable, non-toxic materials, and let a new industry make a profit from it - maybe then China cant sell us bad paint, poisoned toys and sheetrock, etc...  and we actually retain our health and American prosperity instead.<br>
<br>
And its noted in several posts that companies are already doing this on their own - with their own initiatives because they are tired of the same old arguments as well; Moreover they realize there is great money in it with no need to rape the consumer further than they do already.<br>
<br>
To Hell with the disposable generation - the industrial age must grow up and realize its not about consumables as much as its about sustainability.  A new, Green economy needs to also consider durable and non-durable goods alike.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of money in recycling - the industry continues to grow .
Do n't tell me that this effort needs to cost anybody anything aside a few extra acres for a new company with new jobs .
Anything else is an excuse for raping the public in some nefariously placed capitalistic manner .
Further , as a people , we have every-right to mandate laws that will help reduce the waste stream and provide a better quality of live for our citizens .
Its not big government - its clean air and water so we do n't die via poisoning ourselves .
There is no room for the big-government argument here .
Mandate recyclable , non-toxic materials , and let a new industry make a profit from it - maybe then China cant sell us bad paint , poisoned toys and sheetrock , etc... and we actually retain our health and American prosperity instead .
And its noted in several posts that companies are already doing this on their own - with their own initiatives because they are tired of the same old arguments as well ; Moreover they realize there is great money in it with no need to rape the consumer further than they do already .
To Hell with the disposable generation - the industrial age must grow up and realize its not about consumables as much as its about sustainability .
A new , Green economy needs to also consider durable and non-durable goods alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of money in recycling - the industry continues to grow.
Don't tell me that this effort needs to cost anybody anything aside a few extra acres for a new company with new jobs.
Anything else is an excuse for raping the public in some nefariously placed capitalistic manner.
Further, as a people, we have every-right to mandate laws that will help reduce the waste stream and provide a better quality of live for our citizens.
Its not big government - its clean air and water so we don't die via poisoning ourselves.
There is no room for the big-government argument here.
Mandate recyclable, non-toxic materials, and let a new industry make a profit from it - maybe then China cant sell us bad paint, poisoned toys and sheetrock, etc...  and we actually retain our health and American prosperity instead.
And its noted in several posts that companies are already doing this on their own - with their own initiatives because they are tired of the same old arguments as well; Moreover they realize there is great money in it with no need to rape the consumer further than they do already.
To Hell with the disposable generation - the industrial age must grow up and realize its not about consumables as much as its about sustainability.
A new, Green economy needs to also consider durable and non-durable goods alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528849</id>
	<title>Landfill is cheapest and lowest impact</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1246378740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact is, that in most parts of the U.S., land is abundant and cheap compared to the problems posed by recycling problematic and impure materials like electronics.  Recycling is a pollution prone process at best, more so when chemical separation steps are involved.  The zen-like aesthetic appeal of a closed system of recycling doesn't match reality.  Goods like these can, at best, be "downcycled" into products of considerably lower utility and value</p><p>In the post-RoHS, post-CRT era, electronics are no more problematic a waste than those Rubbermaid laundry baskets people buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , that in most parts of the U.S. , land is abundant and cheap compared to the problems posed by recycling problematic and impure materials like electronics .
Recycling is a pollution prone process at best , more so when chemical separation steps are involved .
The zen-like aesthetic appeal of a closed system of recycling does n't match reality .
Goods like these can , at best , be " downcycled " into products of considerably lower utility and valueIn the post-RoHS , post-CRT era , electronics are no more problematic a waste than those Rubbermaid laundry baskets people buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, that in most parts of the U.S., land is abundant and cheap compared to the problems posed by recycling problematic and impure materials like electronics.
Recycling is a pollution prone process at best, more so when chemical separation steps are involved.
The zen-like aesthetic appeal of a closed system of recycling doesn't match reality.
Goods like these can, at best, be "downcycled" into products of considerably lower utility and valueIn the post-RoHS, post-CRT era, electronics are no more problematic a waste than those Rubbermaid laundry baskets people buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528647</id>
	<title>or maybe?</title>
	<author>ratonu</author>
	<datestamp>1246377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electronic Makers' States Push Waste In Disposing of Role</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electronic Makers ' States Push Waste In Disposing of Role</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electronic Makers' States Push Waste In Disposing of Role</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529051</id>
	<title>Re:Every product needs this</title>
	<author>raju1kabir</author>
	<datestamp>1246379460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's more or less how it works in Germany. It hasn't been perfect, but has resulted in less packaging and more use of recyclable components.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's more or less how it works in Germany .
It has n't been perfect , but has resulted in less packaging and more use of recyclable components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's more or less how it works in Germany.
It hasn't been perfect, but has resulted in less packaging and more use of recyclable components.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28530299</id>
	<title>Re:This is a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We get the whole "balanced" yin/yang of making the purchase of electronic devices contain "fees for the totality of all possible negative social and economic impacts to the society and the world."</p><p>It's a grand idea.  Every attempt to implement such things at a federal level has been a battle against inefficiency, corruption and greed.  Using New Zealand as an example, given that they have 1/9th of the population of California doesn't seem to address the scalability issues involved in a national implementation in the US.  It might be a good model for one of the smaller states to implement, especially if they were an island.</p><p>The GPs point is that we have system that works.  It may need improvements, but getting heavy federal government regulation involved won't help.  The added overhead (not counting the money that the purposefully reappropriate), will increase the costs.  That's how you motivate people to cheat.  It's a pressure problem.</p><p>How many of your friends would pirate their music if the legitimate purchase was as easy as iTunes, and 25 cents a song?  Zero, maybe 1 in a 100?</p><p>At 50 cents?</p><p>At 99 cents?</p><p>At 17.99 and you have to buy the whole damned album for the three songs you want?</p><p>Whether or not it's "just and right" to infringe the copyright of these companies, they created the economic pressure that spawned their competition.</p><p>Don't do the same here.  Don't double the cost of doing something everyone wants to do right, and thereby motivate people to cheat.  That's not a win for the planet no matter how "green" you may feel when voting for those laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get the whole " balanced " yin/yang of making the purchase of electronic devices contain " fees for the totality of all possible negative social and economic impacts to the society and the world .
" It 's a grand idea .
Every attempt to implement such things at a federal level has been a battle against inefficiency , corruption and greed .
Using New Zealand as an example , given that they have 1/9th of the population of California does n't seem to address the scalability issues involved in a national implementation in the US .
It might be a good model for one of the smaller states to implement , especially if they were an island.The GPs point is that we have system that works .
It may need improvements , but getting heavy federal government regulation involved wo n't help .
The added overhead ( not counting the money that the purposefully reappropriate ) , will increase the costs .
That 's how you motivate people to cheat .
It 's a pressure problem.How many of your friends would pirate their music if the legitimate purchase was as easy as iTunes , and 25 cents a song ?
Zero , maybe 1 in a 100 ? At 50 cents ? At 99 cents ? At 17.99 and you have to buy the whole damned album for the three songs you want ? Whether or not it 's " just and right " to infringe the copyright of these companies , they created the economic pressure that spawned their competition.Do n't do the same here .
Do n't double the cost of doing something everyone wants to do right , and thereby motivate people to cheat .
That 's not a win for the planet no matter how " green " you may feel when voting for those laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get the whole "balanced" yin/yang of making the purchase of electronic devices contain "fees for the totality of all possible negative social and economic impacts to the society and the world.
"It's a grand idea.
Every attempt to implement such things at a federal level has been a battle against inefficiency, corruption and greed.
Using New Zealand as an example, given that they have 1/9th of the population of California doesn't seem to address the scalability issues involved in a national implementation in the US.
It might be a good model for one of the smaller states to implement, especially if they were an island.The GPs point is that we have system that works.
It may need improvements, but getting heavy federal government regulation involved won't help.
The added overhead (not counting the money that the purposefully reappropriate), will increase the costs.
That's how you motivate people to cheat.
It's a pressure problem.How many of your friends would pirate their music if the legitimate purchase was as easy as iTunes, and 25 cents a song?
Zero, maybe 1 in a 100?At 50 cents?At 99 cents?At 17.99 and you have to buy the whole damned album for the three songs you want?Whether or not it's "just and right" to infringe the copyright of these companies, they created the economic pressure that spawned their competition.Don't do the same here.
Don't double the cost of doing something everyone wants to do right, and thereby motivate people to cheat.
That's not a win for the planet no matter how "green" you may feel when voting for those laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528793</id>
	<title>Already in Europe(tm)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years. Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , this has been common in Europe for some years .
Also , where I live , if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years.
Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528825</id>
	<title>It will motivate them...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. to move production overseas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. to move production overseas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. to move production overseas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28539857</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done</title>
	<author>alecwood</author>
	<datestamp>1246442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Europe we have two sets of pertinent directives, one on waste electrical equipment (WEEE Directive), one on packaging. Both are designed to make the producer of the end product (not the components therein) responsible for the costs of disposal and recycling<br> <br>Since the EU is an huge market for all producers of such products, the design requirements are already built in to comply with this and several other directives, notable recently is RoHS, which banned amongst other things, lead in most solders, and certain bromide fire retardants. It's not economical for manufacturers to produce multiple versions of products, so they will seek to minimise the number of versions as much as possible, and indeed, most electrical equipment sold in the US today complies with all pertinent EU directives on waste management, recyclability, chemical composition etc. I can buy servers from the US and they'll arrive CE marked with RoHS compliance statements in the box.<br> <br>How the compliance with WEEE Directive works varies between the various EU states, but in the UK collection and recycling is done by local authorities who bill a central pool of money on a per unit basis. That pool of money is paid into by the producers of equipment on a per unit sold basis. in some other EU states it's done by the retailers.<br> <br>Point is, it can be done, and has been done already - the system's not perfect, but at least it's a start on forcing manufacturers to consider what happens to their products at end of life. The EU's next target for this concept is car manufacturers.<br> <br>Incidentally, we saw no price rises at consumer level when this directive was enacted, electrical equipment continued it's natural downwards price trend unchanged. We just got the same rip-off prices we always have had</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Europe we have two sets of pertinent directives , one on waste electrical equipment ( WEEE Directive ) , one on packaging .
Both are designed to make the producer of the end product ( not the components therein ) responsible for the costs of disposal and recycling Since the EU is an huge market for all producers of such products , the design requirements are already built in to comply with this and several other directives , notable recently is RoHS , which banned amongst other things , lead in most solders , and certain bromide fire retardants .
It 's not economical for manufacturers to produce multiple versions of products , so they will seek to minimise the number of versions as much as possible , and indeed , most electrical equipment sold in the US today complies with all pertinent EU directives on waste management , recyclability , chemical composition etc .
I can buy servers from the US and they 'll arrive CE marked with RoHS compliance statements in the box .
How the compliance with WEEE Directive works varies between the various EU states , but in the UK collection and recycling is done by local authorities who bill a central pool of money on a per unit basis .
That pool of money is paid into by the producers of equipment on a per unit sold basis .
in some other EU states it 's done by the retailers .
Point is , it can be done , and has been done already - the system 's not perfect , but at least it 's a start on forcing manufacturers to consider what happens to their products at end of life .
The EU 's next target for this concept is car manufacturers .
Incidentally , we saw no price rises at consumer level when this directive was enacted , electrical equipment continued it 's natural downwards price trend unchanged .
We just got the same rip-off prices we always have had</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Europe we have two sets of pertinent directives, one on waste electrical equipment (WEEE Directive), one on packaging.
Both are designed to make the producer of the end product (not the components therein) responsible for the costs of disposal and recycling Since the EU is an huge market for all producers of such products, the design requirements are already built in to comply with this and several other directives, notable recently is RoHS, which banned amongst other things, lead in most solders, and certain bromide fire retardants.
It's not economical for manufacturers to produce multiple versions of products, so they will seek to minimise the number of versions as much as possible, and indeed, most electrical equipment sold in the US today complies with all pertinent EU directives on waste management, recyclability, chemical composition etc.
I can buy servers from the US and they'll arrive CE marked with RoHS compliance statements in the box.
How the compliance with WEEE Directive works varies between the various EU states, but in the UK collection and recycling is done by local authorities who bill a central pool of money on a per unit basis.
That pool of money is paid into by the producers of equipment on a per unit sold basis.
in some other EU states it's done by the retailers.
Point is, it can be done, and has been done already - the system's not perfect, but at least it's a start on forcing manufacturers to consider what happens to their products at end of life.
The EU's next target for this concept is car manufacturers.
Incidentally, we saw no price rises at consumer level when this directive was enacted, electrical equipment continued it's natural downwards price trend unchanged.
We just got the same rip-off prices we always have had</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529065</id>
	<title>so what you're saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>earth is a closed loop system</p></div><p>So the earth will receive the feedback we're giving it and react to come to a new equilibrium? Wouldn't the earth be an open loop system?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>earth is a closed loop systemSo the earth will receive the feedback we 're giving it and react to come to a new equilibrium ?
Would n't the earth be an open loop system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>earth is a closed loop systemSo the earth will receive the feedback we're giving it and react to come to a new equilibrium?
Wouldn't the earth be an open loop system?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28533619</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Art Popp...</p><p>Washington DC or Washington State?</p><p>In Washington State you can take your electronics to the state dumps and the manufacturer is billed for all the recycling processes.</p><p>ITS FREE for the user!</p><p>We are a bit ahead of the curve here...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Art Popp...Washington DC or Washington State ? In Washington State you can take your electronics to the state dumps and the manufacturer is billed for all the recycling processes.ITS FREE for the user ! We are a bit ahead of the curve here... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Art Popp...Washington DC or Washington State?In Washington State you can take your electronics to the state dumps and the manufacturer is billed for all the recycling processes.ITS FREE for the user!We are a bit ahead of the curve here... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529191</id>
	<title>Re:This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1246380120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where does this BS end?  I think the more appropriate question is "Where does this BS start?"  The simple answer is the lack of personal responsibility.  Any plan that takes away responsibility from the individual is always a hit.  The whole "make the government solve all our problems" is disgusting, and both political leanings tend to do it quite a bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does this BS end ?
I think the more appropriate question is " Where does this BS start ?
" The simple answer is the lack of personal responsibility .
Any plan that takes away responsibility from the individual is always a hit .
The whole " make the government solve all our problems " is disgusting , and both political leanings tend to do it quite a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does this BS end?
I think the more appropriate question is "Where does this BS start?
"  The simple answer is the lack of personal responsibility.
Any plan that takes away responsibility from the individual is always a hit.
The whole "make the government solve all our problems" is disgusting, and both political leanings tend to do it quite a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937</id>
	<title>Re:Every product needs this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products?</p></div><p>Yes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only downside I see is higher prices</p></div><p>No, the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer.   The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this be a good idea for all products ? Yes.The only downside I see is higher pricesNo , the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it 's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer .
The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front , rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product 's useful life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products?Yes.The only downside I see is higher pricesNo, the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer.
The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532765</id>
	<title>Re:This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1246391040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?</p></div><p>Yes, great idea!  I agree 100\%.  If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that won't degrate for 1000 years, or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that's just as durable for the five minutes it's needed, but will break down within 5 years in a land fill, they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.</p><p>Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products.  That's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does this BS end ?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags ? Yes , great idea !
I agree 100 \ % .
If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that wo n't degrate for 1000 years , or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that 's just as durable for the five minutes it 's needed , but will break down within 5 years in a land fill , they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products .
That 's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does this BS end?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?Yes, great idea!
I agree 100\%.
If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that won't degrate for 1000 years, or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that's just as durable for the five minutes it's needed, but will break down within 5 years in a land fill, they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products.
That's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531079</id>
	<title>Re:This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>AshtangiMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246385400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty disingenuous at best, ignorant perhaps, or even malicious at worst to classify this as a Democrat or Republican problem (much like the war, TARP, irresponsible mortgages, Iraq, military industrial complex, education, etc).  You are obviously trolling, but your mod indicates that someone out there still buys into the fud (ie, is a tool for the corrupt political process).  I wonder if the Libertarian party would actually work to shrink the government . . . Clinton did shrink it a bit, but I won't try to tout that as proof that the Democrats are any better, certainly Reagan helped the tax situation for the wealthy, but the deficit spending he perfected worked to grow government.  Ron Paul says the right things, but politicians know how to talk.  It's the doing that often diverges from the so called plan.  So with that in mind I'll fix your post:
<br> <br>
Hello Tools, goodbye personal responsibility.<br>
[. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.]<br>
Think for yourself</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty disingenuous at best , ignorant perhaps , or even malicious at worst to classify this as a Democrat or Republican problem ( much like the war , TARP , irresponsible mortgages , Iraq , military industrial complex , education , etc ) .
You are obviously trolling , but your mod indicates that someone out there still buys into the fud ( ie , is a tool for the corrupt political process ) .
I wonder if the Libertarian party would actually work to shrink the government .
. .
Clinton did shrink it a bit , but I wo n't try to tout that as proof that the Democrats are any better , certainly Reagan helped the tax situation for the wealthy , but the deficit spending he perfected worked to grow government .
Ron Paul says the right things , but politicians know how to talk .
It 's the doing that often diverges from the so called plan .
So with that in mind I 'll fix your post : Hello Tools , goodbye personal responsibility .
[ . .
. ] Think for yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty disingenuous at best, ignorant perhaps, or even malicious at worst to classify this as a Democrat or Republican problem (much like the war, TARP, irresponsible mortgages, Iraq, military industrial complex, education, etc).
You are obviously trolling, but your mod indicates that someone out there still buys into the fud (ie, is a tool for the corrupt political process).
I wonder if the Libertarian party would actually work to shrink the government .
. .
Clinton did shrink it a bit, but I won't try to tout that as proof that the Democrats are any better, certainly Reagan helped the tax situation for the wealthy, but the deficit spending he perfected worked to grow government.
Ron Paul says the right things, but politicians know how to talk.
It's the doing that often diverges from the so called plan.
So with that in mind I'll fix your post:
 
Hello Tools, goodbye personal responsibility.
[. .
.]
Think for yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528881</id>
	<title>Won't work, tried in the past.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paper made from hemp is better for the environment, but we all know that some greedy asshole paper barons had some well paid for lobbyists to make sure their income didn't diminish. Now we have a fake war on drugs as a way to make even more money. If anything, recycling should be made illegal, the feds should create a NREA (no-recycling enforcement agency) for the sake of the all-mighty dollar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paper made from hemp is better for the environment , but we all know that some greedy asshole paper barons had some well paid for lobbyists to make sure their income did n't diminish .
Now we have a fake war on drugs as a way to make even more money .
If anything , recycling should be made illegal , the feds should create a NREA ( no-recycling enforcement agency ) for the sake of the all-mighty dollar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paper made from hemp is better for the environment, but we all know that some greedy asshole paper barons had some well paid for lobbyists to make sure their income didn't diminish.
Now we have a fake war on drugs as a way to make even more money.
If anything, recycling should be made illegal, the feds should create a NREA (no-recycling enforcement agency) for the sake of the all-mighty dollar!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529125</id>
	<title>make the oil co's responsible for cleaning CO2</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's hard to believe. typical double-standard bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's hard to believe .
typical double-standard bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's hard to believe.
typical double-standard bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28536191</id>
	<title>Re:Every product needs this</title>
	<author>Nossie</author>
	<datestamp>1246363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tech companies will only do with it like they did customer service<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>customer service = cost too much</p><p>solution? outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap (with few to nil regulations)</p><p>recycle electronic waste you helped make = cost too much</p><p>solution? outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap (with few to nil regulations)</p><p>And what will happen? The consumer will pay more because the company will still fire on extra charges for the privilege.... thanks government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tech companies will only do with it like they did customer service ...customer service = cost too muchsolution ?
outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap ( with few to nil regulations ) recycle electronic waste you helped make = cost too muchsolution ?
outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap ( with few to nil regulations ) And what will happen ?
The consumer will pay more because the company will still fire on extra charges for the privilege.... thanks government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tech companies will only do with it like they did customer service ...customer service = cost too muchsolution?
outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap (with few to nil regulations)recycle electronic waste you helped make = cost too muchsolution?
outsource it to poor countries to be done on the illegally cheap (with few to nil regulations)And what will happen?
The consumer will pay more because the company will still fire on extra charges for the privilege.... thanks government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529411</id>
	<title>Sounds like more Idiot, Moron, democrat socialist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like more Idiot, Moron, democrat socialist garbage to me!</p><p>Consumers are responsible for thier own choices and waste!  NOT MANUFACTURORS!</p><p>The idea that manufacturors are reponsible for the recycling and waste of thier products AFTER the sale of the item is IRRESPONSIBLE and IDIOTIC!</p><p>I am sick an tired of this idiotic, moronic, democrat idea that "it is not my fault; it is not my responsibility; it is everyone else but me; it is big business; it is the banks; etc."</p><p>Impeach obama!  impeach b.o.!</p><p>Remove the CZARS! They have no congressional or any other oversight!</p><p>stop printing money!  Your deflating our dollar!  Soon, noone will buy our debt because we can never pay it back!</p><p>Impeach all democrats!</p><p>Impeach all liberals, progressives, facisists, socialists, communists!</p><p>Deport the illegal aliens!</p><p>DO NOT ALLOW SOTOMAYER, the idiot judge that does not even know the law much less enforce it, BE ADDED TO THE SUPREME COURT!     HER BAD DECISIONS been over-turned too often!   Get someone who actually believes in the letter of the law!</p><p>Fund the Yuca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility again - full funding!</p><p>Restore funding to hydrogen fuel vehicles!  They don't have the battery disposal problems of the obama cars!</p><p>Start allowing permits for new and expanded nuclear power plants!!!!!  They are SAFE, CLEAN and are an inexpensive source of hydrogen for transportation vehicles!!!!!</p><p>NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!!!!!   Instead, reform the medical malpractice - too many too large judgements!!!!  It is this legal cost that has driven up health care!!!!!!!</p><p>One national health insurance regulator instead of seperate state ones.  Then require a base, minimum, critical care / hospitalization insurrance that people can afford from PRIVATE INSURRORS!</p><p>CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN THAT DO NOT READ THE BILLS AND VOTE 'YES' ON THEM ANYWAY NEED TO BE REMOVED AND CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!!!!!</p><p>THIS IS HTE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS, WHITE HOUSE, STATE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT WE HAVE EVER HAD!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like more Idiot , Moron , democrat socialist garbage to me ! Consumers are responsible for thier own choices and waste !
NOT MANUFACTURORS ! The idea that manufacturors are reponsible for the recycling and waste of thier products AFTER the sale of the item is IRRESPONSIBLE and IDIOTIC ! I am sick an tired of this idiotic , moronic , democrat idea that " it is not my fault ; it is not my responsibility ; it is everyone else but me ; it is big business ; it is the banks ; etc .
" Impeach obama !
impeach b.o .
! Remove the CZARS !
They have no congressional or any other oversight ! stop printing money !
Your deflating our dollar !
Soon , noone will buy our debt because we can never pay it back ! Impeach all democrats ! Impeach all liberals , progressives , facisists , socialists , communists ! Deport the illegal aliens ! DO NOT ALLOW SOTOMAYER , the idiot judge that does not even know the law much less enforce it , BE ADDED TO THE SUPREME COURT !
HER BAD DECISIONS been over-turned too often !
Get someone who actually believes in the letter of the law ! Fund the Yuca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility again - full funding ! Restore funding to hydrogen fuel vehicles !
They do n't have the battery disposal problems of the obama cars ! Start allowing permits for new and expanded nuclear power plants ! ! ! ! !
They are SAFE , CLEAN and are an inexpensive source of hydrogen for transportation vehicles ! ! ! !
! NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE ! ! ! ! !
Instead , reform the medical malpractice - too many too large judgements ! ! ! !
It is this legal cost that has driven up health care ! ! ! ! ! !
! One national health insurance regulator instead of seperate state ones .
Then require a base , minimum , critical care / hospitalization insurrance that people can afford from PRIVATE INSURRORS ! CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN THAT DO NOT READ THE BILLS AND VOTE 'YES ' ON THEM ANYWAY NEED TO BE REMOVED AND CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE ! ! ! ! !
! THIS IS HTE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS , WHITE HOUSE , STATE DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT WE HAVE EVER HAD ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like more Idiot, Moron, democrat socialist garbage to me!Consumers are responsible for thier own choices and waste!
NOT MANUFACTURORS!The idea that manufacturors are reponsible for the recycling and waste of thier products AFTER the sale of the item is IRRESPONSIBLE and IDIOTIC!I am sick an tired of this idiotic, moronic, democrat idea that "it is not my fault; it is not my responsibility; it is everyone else but me; it is big business; it is the banks; etc.
"Impeach obama!
impeach b.o.
!Remove the CZARS!
They have no congressional or any other oversight!stop printing money!
Your deflating our dollar!
Soon, noone will buy our debt because we can never pay it back!Impeach all democrats!Impeach all liberals, progressives, facisists, socialists, communists!Deport the illegal aliens!DO NOT ALLOW SOTOMAYER, the idiot judge that does not even know the law much less enforce it, BE ADDED TO THE SUPREME COURT!
HER BAD DECISIONS been over-turned too often!
Get someone who actually believes in the letter of the law!Fund the Yuca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility again - full funding!Restore funding to hydrogen fuel vehicles!
They don't have the battery disposal problems of the obama cars!Start allowing permits for new and expanded nuclear power plants!!!!!
They are SAFE, CLEAN and are an inexpensive source of hydrogen for transportation vehicles!!!!
!NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!!!!!
Instead, reform the medical malpractice - too many too large judgements!!!!
It is this legal cost that has driven up health care!!!!!!
!One national health insurance regulator instead of seperate state ones.
Then require a base, minimum, critical care / hospitalization insurrance that people can afford from PRIVATE INSURRORS!CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN THAT DO NOT READ THE BILLS AND VOTE 'YES' ON THEM ANYWAY NEED TO BE REMOVED AND CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!!!!
!THIS IS HTE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS, WHITE HOUSE, STATE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT WE HAVE EVER HAD!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528853</id>
	<title>Planned Obsolescence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of makes planned obsolescence come back to bite the manufacturer in the ass, doesn't it?</p><p>The end user will be the one paying for it in the long run anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of makes planned obsolescence come back to bite the manufacturer in the ass , does n't it ? The end user will be the one paying for it in the long run anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of makes planned obsolescence come back to bite the manufacturer in the ass, doesn't it?The end user will be the one paying for it in the long run anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529637</id>
	<title>Re:Crush and recycle, what am I missing?</title>
	<author>SlashMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good Point!</p><p>I helped with a recycling facility design that would separate out the plastics from electronics waste ( yes, that actually occurs without going across the water also ).  It can be done.</p><p>Electronics:<br>Electronic Recycling generally involves precious metals along with Lead and Nickel.  I learned years ago at Amateur Radio Swapmeets (Hamfests) that there is blast furnace in Rockford, IL that will burn your circuit boards down and provide you with an ingot of GOLD, Silver, and another with all of the rest of the metals that were in the circuit boards ( again, no shipping of goods across the water involved ).</p><p>Goodwill has always been a willing recipient of my junk computers and monitors.  The PCs don't even need to work!</p><p>Picture tubes from TVs and Monitors are definitely a separate difficult case though. - I cannot address this myself at this time.</p><p>I expect that much of this should go away shortly from the manufacturer's level due to most large and especially multi-national manufacturers having internal committees in-place for probably at least 10years that help ensure that their products and methods don't pollute the landfills as they want to live here also.</p><p>Tax It?<br>We presently have a deposit on Soda and Alcohol containers in Iowa.  Years ago, this deposit was really an incentive for people to return the bottles as they were so expensive to make.  However, it has now turned into a container tax.  Perhaps we now need deposits on Milk Jugs, Cereal Boxes, Cans, Glass Jugs, any Plastic Containers, and even plastic bags also? - not.</p><p>I recommend that our communities and businesses develop recycling plans to reduce the amount of recycleables that end-up in the land-fills in general rather than considering new ways of taxing this relatively budding industry - Scrap metal was at a premium up until last summer when the economy tanked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Point ! I helped with a recycling facility design that would separate out the plastics from electronics waste ( yes , that actually occurs without going across the water also ) .
It can be done.Electronics : Electronic Recycling generally involves precious metals along with Lead and Nickel .
I learned years ago at Amateur Radio Swapmeets ( Hamfests ) that there is blast furnace in Rockford , IL that will burn your circuit boards down and provide you with an ingot of GOLD , Silver , and another with all of the rest of the metals that were in the circuit boards ( again , no shipping of goods across the water involved ) .Goodwill has always been a willing recipient of my junk computers and monitors .
The PCs do n't even need to work ! Picture tubes from TVs and Monitors are definitely a separate difficult case though .
- I can not address this myself at this time.I expect that much of this should go away shortly from the manufacturer 's level due to most large and especially multi-national manufacturers having internal committees in-place for probably at least 10years that help ensure that their products and methods do n't pollute the landfills as they want to live here also.Tax It ? We presently have a deposit on Soda and Alcohol containers in Iowa .
Years ago , this deposit was really an incentive for people to return the bottles as they were so expensive to make .
However , it has now turned into a container tax .
Perhaps we now need deposits on Milk Jugs , Cereal Boxes , Cans , Glass Jugs , any Plastic Containers , and even plastic bags also ?
- not.I recommend that our communities and businesses develop recycling plans to reduce the amount of recycleables that end-up in the land-fills in general rather than considering new ways of taxing this relatively budding industry - Scrap metal was at a premium up until last summer when the economy tanked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Point!I helped with a recycling facility design that would separate out the plastics from electronics waste ( yes, that actually occurs without going across the water also ).
It can be done.Electronics:Electronic Recycling generally involves precious metals along with Lead and Nickel.
I learned years ago at Amateur Radio Swapmeets (Hamfests) that there is blast furnace in Rockford, IL that will burn your circuit boards down and provide you with an ingot of GOLD, Silver, and another with all of the rest of the metals that were in the circuit boards ( again, no shipping of goods across the water involved ).Goodwill has always been a willing recipient of my junk computers and monitors.
The PCs don't even need to work!Picture tubes from TVs and Monitors are definitely a separate difficult case though.
- I cannot address this myself at this time.I expect that much of this should go away shortly from the manufacturer's level due to most large and especially multi-national manufacturers having internal committees in-place for probably at least 10years that help ensure that their products and methods don't pollute the landfills as they want to live here also.Tax It?We presently have a deposit on Soda and Alcohol containers in Iowa.
Years ago, this deposit was really an incentive for people to return the bottles as they were so expensive to make.
However, it has now turned into a container tax.
Perhaps we now need deposits on Milk Jugs, Cereal Boxes, Cans, Glass Jugs, any Plastic Containers, and even plastic bags also?
- not.I recommend that our communities and businesses develop recycling plans to reduce the amount of recycleables that end-up in the land-fills in general rather than considering new ways of taxing this relatively budding industry - Scrap metal was at a premium up until last summer when the economy tanked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659</id>
	<title>This is a terrible idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Washington and take my old computers to RePC.  They charge a fee, $5 to $10 a unit that depends entirely on the labor to rip it apart into its "differently recycled pieces."  They have huge heaps of PCBs in one pile, metal caes in another, I assume crushable plastic was hiding behind those.</p><p>If you get the federal government involved they will put a tax on the manufacturers (which we will pay for our new toys), and then they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g. social security).  That's inane.  I'm sorry the mega-corps have to deal with all the state laws, but they have lawyers for that sort of thing already.</p><p>Even if the money collected were in a closed loop, (which it won't be), having the consumer put the five dollar bills in the hands of the company doing the work seems vastly more efficient than anything that we could do with "national taxes by weight/volume/content,"  "recycling-prepaid" stamps and typical regulation details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Washington and take my old computers to RePC .
They charge a fee , $ 5 to $ 10 a unit that depends entirely on the labor to rip it apart into its " differently recycled pieces .
" They have huge heaps of PCBs in one pile , metal caes in another , I assume crushable plastic was hiding behind those.If you get the federal government involved they will put a tax on the manufacturers ( which we will pay for our new toys ) , and then they 'll go spend it elsewhere ( e.g .
social security ) .
That 's inane .
I 'm sorry the mega-corps have to deal with all the state laws , but they have lawyers for that sort of thing already.Even if the money collected were in a closed loop , ( which it wo n't be ) , having the consumer put the five dollar bills in the hands of the company doing the work seems vastly more efficient than anything that we could do with " national taxes by weight/volume/content , " " recycling-prepaid " stamps and typical regulation details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Washington and take my old computers to RePC.
They charge a fee, $5 to $10 a unit that depends entirely on the labor to rip it apart into its "differently recycled pieces.
"  They have huge heaps of PCBs in one pile, metal caes in another, I assume crushable plastic was hiding behind those.If you get the federal government involved they will put a tax on the manufacturers (which we will pay for our new toys), and then they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g.
social security).
That's inane.
I'm sorry the mega-corps have to deal with all the state laws, but they have lawyers for that sort of thing already.Even if the money collected were in a closed loop, (which it won't be), having the consumer put the five dollar bills in the hands of the company doing the work seems vastly more efficient than anything that we could do with "national taxes by weight/volume/content,"  "recycling-prepaid" stamps and typical regulation details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528871</id>
	<title>Change comsumption not disposal...</title>
	<author>danking</author>
	<datestamp>1246378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I agree with the idea of recycling but a new paradigm is needed.

We as a species consume way too much which creates way too much waste. Around 1\% of all consumer goods are disposed of within months after purchase.

We are in need of a cycle that is more symbiotic and less parasitic towards the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I agree with the idea of recycling but a new paradigm is needed .
We as a species consume way too much which creates way too much waste .
Around 1 \ % of all consumer goods are disposed of within months after purchase .
We are in need of a cycle that is more symbiotic and less parasitic towards the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I agree with the idea of recycling but a new paradigm is needed.
We as a species consume way too much which creates way too much waste.
Around 1\% of all consumer goods are disposed of within months after purchase.
We are in need of a cycle that is more symbiotic and less parasitic towards the earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529321</id>
	<title>Re:This is Bullshit</title>
	<author>mdalal97</author>
	<datestamp>1246380540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider myself a tree hugger and, yes, in a sense, the companies should be responsible for the cost of their products on society.  Do I think PC manufacturers need to be involved in the recycling of their electronic gadgets?  No.  Do I believe they need to pay to cover the disposal cost of those goods?  Absolutely.  Granted that cost will be passed on to the consumer, but that is what needs to happen.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags? GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?</p></div><p>It is not BS, it is being a responsible citizen.   In the case of McDonalds, they could provide a simple means for people to separate out their recyclable stuff from the non-recyclables -- trash bins and recycle bins in the stores.  They could also offer a 5cent discount if you bring your own bag or cup.  Can't offer much input on cars, but it I assume much of the car's metals are already recycled and put into new cars/products.</p><p>The goal is not to punish the companies/producers.  The goal is to provide an incentive to improve environmental practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself a tree hugger and , yes , in a sense , the companies should be responsible for the cost of their products on society .
Do I think PC manufacturers need to be involved in the recycling of their electronic gadgets ?
No. Do I believe they need to pay to cover the disposal cost of those goods ?
Absolutely. Granted that cost will be passed on to the consumer , but that is what needs to happen.Where does this BS end ?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags ?
GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars ? It is not BS , it is being a responsible citizen .
In the case of McDonalds , they could provide a simple means for people to separate out their recyclable stuff from the non-recyclables -- trash bins and recycle bins in the stores .
They could also offer a 5cent discount if you bring your own bag or cup .
Ca n't offer much input on cars , but it I assume much of the car 's metals are already recycled and put into new cars/products.The goal is not to punish the companies/producers .
The goal is to provide an incentive to improve environmental practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself a tree hugger and, yes, in a sense, the companies should be responsible for the cost of their products on society.
Do I think PC manufacturers need to be involved in the recycling of their electronic gadgets?
No.  Do I believe they need to pay to cover the disposal cost of those goods?
Absolutely.  Granted that cost will be passed on to the consumer, but that is what needs to happen.Where does this BS end?
McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?
GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?It is not BS, it is being a responsible citizen.
In the case of McDonalds, they could provide a simple means for people to separate out their recyclable stuff from the non-recyclables -- trash bins and recycle bins in the stores.
They could also offer a 5cent discount if you bring your own bag or cup.
Can't offer much input on cars, but it I assume much of the car's metals are already recycled and put into new cars/products.The goal is not to punish the companies/producers.
The goal is to provide an incentive to improve environmental practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28540261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28533619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28541225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28542429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28539857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28530299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28537773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1438227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28536191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28537773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28536191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28539857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28542429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28532257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28530299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28533619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28541225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28531079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28529503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28540261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1438227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1438227.28528825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
