<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_201200</id>
	<title>Planck Telescope Is Coolest Spacecraft Ever</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246700340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Launched in May, BBC reports that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8133806.stm">Europe's Planck observatory has reached its operating temperature</a>, a staggering minus 273.05C &mdash; just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero."  and although laboratory set-ups have got closer to absolute zero than Planck, researchers say it is unlikely there is anywhere in space currently that is colder than their astronomical satellite. This frigidity should ensure the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer">bolometers</a> will be at their most sensitive as they look for variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that are about a million times smaller than one degree &mdash; <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090703142158.htm">comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon</a>. Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system, L2, some 1.5 million km from Earth and Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science &mdash; how did the Universe begin, how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and how will it continue to evolve in the future. Planck's objectives include <a href="http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=30968">mapping of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies with improved sensitivity and angular resolution</a>, determination of the Hubble constant, testing inflationary models of the early Universe, and measuring amplitude of structures in Cosmic Microwave Background. '<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8050157.stm">We will be probing regimes that have never been studied before where the physics is very, very uncertain</a>,' says Planck investigator Professor George Efstathiou from Cambridge University. 'It's possible we could find a signature from before the Big Bang; or it's possible we could find the signature of another Universe and then we'd have experimental evidence that we are part of a multi-verse.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Launched in May , BBC reports that Europe 's Planck observatory has reached its operating temperature , a staggering minus 273.05C    just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term " absolute zero .
" and although laboratory set-ups have got closer to absolute zero than Planck , researchers say it is unlikely there is anywhere in space currently that is colder than their astronomical satellite .
This frigidity should ensure the bolometers will be at their most sensitive as they look for variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background ( CMB ) that are about a million times smaller than one degree    comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon .
Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system , L2 , some 1.5 million km from Earth and Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science    how did the Universe begin , how did it evolve to the state we observe today , and how will it continue to evolve in the future .
Planck 's objectives include mapping of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies with improved sensitivity and angular resolution , determination of the Hubble constant , testing inflationary models of the early Universe , and measuring amplitude of structures in Cosmic Microwave Background .
'We will be probing regimes that have never been studied before where the physics is very , very uncertain, ' says Planck investigator Professor George Efstathiou from Cambridge University .
'It 's possible we could find a signature from before the Big Bang ; or it 's possible we could find the signature of another Universe and then we 'd have experimental evidence that we are part of a multi-verse .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Launched in May, BBC reports that Europe's Planck observatory has reached its operating temperature, a staggering minus 273.05C — just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero.
"  and although laboratory set-ups have got closer to absolute zero than Planck, researchers say it is unlikely there is anywhere in space currently that is colder than their astronomical satellite.
This frigidity should ensure the bolometers will be at their most sensitive as they look for variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that are about a million times smaller than one degree — comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon.
Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system, L2, some 1.5 million km from Earth and Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science — how did the Universe begin, how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and how will it continue to evolve in the future.
Planck's objectives include mapping of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies with improved sensitivity and angular resolution, determination of the Hubble constant, testing inflationary models of the early Universe, and measuring amplitude of structures in Cosmic Microwave Background.
'We will be probing regimes that have never been studied before where the physics is very, very uncertain,' says Planck investigator Professor George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
'It's possible we could find a signature from before the Big Bang; or it's possible we could find the signature of another Universe and then we'd have experimental evidence that we are part of a multi-verse.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1246707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it does n't have a pressure suit , O2 supply , or thermal protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582807</id>
	<title>Now that's COOL.....if.......</title>
	<author>spazekaat</author>
	<datestamp>1246704600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the rabbits don't have the Holy Hand Grenade in their arsenal.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)))</p><p>(Monty Python and the Holy Grail for all you unwashed masses....)</p><p>But, seriously, being to cool down the detectors so low is great, although I don't think that it is a "first" (citation needed).<br>Didn't COBE have super-cooled detectors also?  I'm too lazy to look that up.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the rabbits do n't have the Holy Hand Grenade in their arsenal..... : - ) ) ) ( Monty Python and the Holy Grail for all you unwashed masses.... ) But , seriously , being to cool down the detectors so low is great , although I do n't think that it is a " first " ( citation needed ) .Did n't COBE have super-cooled detectors also ?
I 'm too lazy to look that up..... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the rabbits don't have the Holy Hand Grenade in their arsenal..... :-)))(Monty Python and the Holy Grail for all you unwashed masses....)But, seriously, being to cool down the detectors so low is great, although I don't think that it is a "first" (citation needed).Didn't COBE have super-cooled detectors also?
I'm too lazy to look that up..... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586113</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246805640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news the radiation emited by a black hole is the heat released by all the local rabits as they are suck by the black hole, that has been tested by a MIT black hole simulation and the data correlate for the expected average of rabits around a black hole with an error lower than 0.0.0.1\%, so there you got</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news the radiation emited by a black hole is the heat released by all the local rabits as they are suck by the black hole , that has been tested by a MIT black hole simulation and the data correlate for the expected average of rabits around a black hole with an error lower than 0.0.0.1 \ % , so there you got</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news the radiation emited by a black hole is the heat released by all the local rabits as they are suck by the black hole, that has been tested by a MIT black hole simulation and the data correlate for the expected average of rabits around a black hole with an error lower than 0.0.0.1\%, so there you got</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585245</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>MateuszM</author>
	<datestamp>1246788480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty easy:
<ol>
<li>Let's assume that a standard rabbit continuously emits 310 K (that's about 37' C or 99' F for all you types thinking in those old-fashioned units).
Further, let's assume that it emits this heat over the area of 0.1 square meter, continuously.</li>
<li>To obtain the same with Libraries of Congress (LoC for short) we first need to convert its information to heat. This can be easily done by burning books.</li>
<li>As we all know paper burns at 506 K (that's 451' F if you don't quite remember). A standard A4 page has about 0.062 square meters, a letter page about 0.06 square meters. We'll assume 0.061 for further calcuations.</li>
<li>As 1 LoC contains 32 Mbooks and 61 Mmanuscripts, counting on average 250 pages per book and 100 pages per manuscript we get 14.1 Gpages.</li>
<li>Now we do simple math and we obtain that we need to burn 71 pLoC (picoLoc) to emit the same heat as 1 rabbit. As we need to emit that heat continuously this gives burning 71 pLoc / s.</li>
</ol><p>

And you can see now why they gave you old-fashioned rabbit instead of uniformly accepted units - 71pLoC/s does not sound too sexy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty easy : Let 's assume that a standard rabbit continuously emits 310 K ( that 's about 37 ' C or 99 ' F for all you types thinking in those old-fashioned units ) .
Further , let 's assume that it emits this heat over the area of 0.1 square meter , continuously .
To obtain the same with Libraries of Congress ( LoC for short ) we first need to convert its information to heat .
This can be easily done by burning books .
As we all know paper burns at 506 K ( that 's 451 ' F if you do n't quite remember ) .
A standard A4 page has about 0.062 square meters , a letter page about 0.06 square meters .
We 'll assume 0.061 for further calcuations .
As 1 LoC contains 32 Mbooks and 61 Mmanuscripts , counting on average 250 pages per book and 100 pages per manuscript we get 14.1 Gpages .
Now we do simple math and we obtain that we need to burn 71 pLoC ( picoLoc ) to emit the same heat as 1 rabbit .
As we need to emit that heat continuously this gives burning 71 pLoc / s . And you can see now why they gave you old-fashioned rabbit instead of uniformly accepted units - 71pLoC/s does not sound too sexy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty easy:

Let's assume that a standard rabbit continuously emits 310 K (that's about 37' C or 99' F for all you types thinking in those old-fashioned units).
Further, let's assume that it emits this heat over the area of 0.1 square meter, continuously.
To obtain the same with Libraries of Congress (LoC for short) we first need to convert its information to heat.
This can be easily done by burning books.
As we all know paper burns at 506 K (that's 451' F if you don't quite remember).
A standard A4 page has about 0.062 square meters, a letter page about 0.06 square meters.
We'll assume 0.061 for further calcuations.
As 1 LoC contains 32 Mbooks and 61 Mmanuscripts, counting on average 250 pages per book and 100 pages per manuscript we get 14.1 Gpages.
Now we do simple math and we obtain that we need to burn 71 pLoC (picoLoc) to emit the same heat as 1 rabbit.
As we need to emit that heat continuously this gives burning 71 pLoc / s.


And you can see now why they gave you old-fashioned rabbit instead of uniformly accepted units - 71pLoC/s does not sound too sexy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28590173</id>
	<title>Re:NPOV</title>
	<author>cyberseptic</author>
	<datestamp>1246806060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kinda' stopped reading the article at that sentence. It makes me feel dirty to do so...but you have to draw a line somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda ' stopped reading the article at that sentence .
It makes me feel dirty to do so...but you have to draw a line somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda' stopped reading the article at that sentence.
It makes me feel dirty to do so...but you have to draw a line somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585221</id>
	<title>I don't know but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246787880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hot SPACE RABBITS</p></div><p>I know that late this night I will have the weirdest fantasy ever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hot SPACE RABBITSI know that late this night I will have the weirdest fantasy ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hot SPACE RABBITSI know that late this night I will have the weirdest fantasy ever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585161</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>laederkeps</author>
	<datestamp>1246786740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously haven't met <a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/glenda.html" title="bell-labs.com" rel="nofollow">Glenda</a> [bell-labs.com], The plan 9 bunny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously have n't met Glenda [ bell-labs.com ] , The plan 9 bunny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously haven't met Glenda [bell-labs.com], The plan 9 bunny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584171</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1246724400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why is it so hard for you to understand there are many models of the universe, there are those that have events before the big bang, including an endless sequence of big bangs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why is it so hard for you to understand there are many models of the universe , there are those that have events before the big bang , including an endless sequence of big bangs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is it so hard for you to understand there are many models of the universe, there are those that have events before the big bang, including an endless sequence of big bangs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584017</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>thrawn\_aj</author>
	<datestamp>1246721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon</p></div></blockquote><p>Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging? I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really? Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?</p></div><p>Actually, that's an interesting question. It has been answered in this thread but I'd like to address a deeper issue here. Technical challenges usually come in two flavors, one which can be solved simply by making a device better and better and the other, which has to do with the signal you're trying to measure just not being there (or is otherwise masked by "noise"). I put "noise" in quotes because people always assume the signal can be separated from the noise. Not so. In most cases, you have to know the source of the noise to reliably subtract it out. In other cases, you can be lucky and the noise will be random so that greater averaging of the data filters out the noise automatically. For ALL other cases, people have to resort to making assumptions about the noise, which means that the "filtered signal" you end up with has (sometimes huge) contributions from the person who made the assumption. Is it a rabbit or an artifact of my assumptions? <br> <br>

This particular question you raise is in that final category. There just isn't enough signal there that is <i>distinguishable</i> from the surrounding crap for you to tell with any certainty that you have rabbits on the moon and not a migratory bird flock here in the sky. You could always throw money at the problem (in principle) by having a dozen weather satellites constantly monitoring the patch of atmosphere in direct line of sight between you and the moon and feeding you detailed real-time data of temperature, pressure, index of refraction, chemical composition of air(/dust) in there (affects absorption/reflection/transmission). THEN, you MIGHT stand a good chance of catching a glimpse of your elusive rabbit. <br> <br>

Technology can always be improved. Ambient conditions will always be the ultimate threshold for the actual <i>utility</i> of that technology. <br> <br>

That is not to say that a particular phenomenon always stays of out of reach. One simply realizes that certain constraints stated in the problem are actually ridiculous. For instance, if the goal was really to observe rabbits on the moon, the constraint that the instrument be on the earth is highly artificial. Instead, one would relax that constraint, put a satellite above the atmosphere, satisfy one's rabbit fetish and the problem's solved<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we do n't already have this capability ?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in ( optical ?
thermal ? ) imaging ?
I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really ?
Not even a rabbit ( which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly ) ? Actually , that 's an interesting question .
It has been answered in this thread but I 'd like to address a deeper issue here .
Technical challenges usually come in two flavors , one which can be solved simply by making a device better and better and the other , which has to do with the signal you 're trying to measure just not being there ( or is otherwise masked by " noise " ) .
I put " noise " in quotes because people always assume the signal can be separated from the noise .
Not so .
In most cases , you have to know the source of the noise to reliably subtract it out .
In other cases , you can be lucky and the noise will be random so that greater averaging of the data filters out the noise automatically .
For ALL other cases , people have to resort to making assumptions about the noise , which means that the " filtered signal " you end up with has ( sometimes huge ) contributions from the person who made the assumption .
Is it a rabbit or an artifact of my assumptions ?
This particular question you raise is in that final category .
There just is n't enough signal there that is distinguishable from the surrounding crap for you to tell with any certainty that you have rabbits on the moon and not a migratory bird flock here in the sky .
You could always throw money at the problem ( in principle ) by having a dozen weather satellites constantly monitoring the patch of atmosphere in direct line of sight between you and the moon and feeding you detailed real-time data of temperature , pressure , index of refraction , chemical composition of air ( /dust ) in there ( affects absorption/reflection/transmission ) .
THEN , you MIGHT stand a good chance of catching a glimpse of your elusive rabbit .
Technology can always be improved .
Ambient conditions will always be the ultimate threshold for the actual utility of that technology .
That is not to say that a particular phenomenon always stays of out of reach .
One simply realizes that certain constraints stated in the problem are actually ridiculous .
For instance , if the goal was really to observe rabbits on the moon , the constraint that the instrument be on the earth is highly artificial .
Instead , one would relax that constraint , put a satellite above the atmosphere , satisfy one 's rabbit fetish and the problem 's solved : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical?
thermal?) imaging?
I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really?
Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?Actually, that's an interesting question.
It has been answered in this thread but I'd like to address a deeper issue here.
Technical challenges usually come in two flavors, one which can be solved simply by making a device better and better and the other, which has to do with the signal you're trying to measure just not being there (or is otherwise masked by "noise").
I put "noise" in quotes because people always assume the signal can be separated from the noise.
Not so.
In most cases, you have to know the source of the noise to reliably subtract it out.
In other cases, you can be lucky and the noise will be random so that greater averaging of the data filters out the noise automatically.
For ALL other cases, people have to resort to making assumptions about the noise, which means that the "filtered signal" you end up with has (sometimes huge) contributions from the person who made the assumption.
Is it a rabbit or an artifact of my assumptions?
This particular question you raise is in that final category.
There just isn't enough signal there that is distinguishable from the surrounding crap for you to tell with any certainty that you have rabbits on the moon and not a migratory bird flock here in the sky.
You could always throw money at the problem (in principle) by having a dozen weather satellites constantly monitoring the patch of atmosphere in direct line of sight between you and the moon and feeding you detailed real-time data of temperature, pressure, index of refraction, chemical composition of air(/dust) in there (affects absorption/reflection/transmission).
THEN, you MIGHT stand a good chance of catching a glimpse of your elusive rabbit.
Technology can always be improved.
Ambient conditions will always be the ultimate threshold for the actual utility of that technology.
That is not to say that a particular phenomenon always stays of out of reach.
One simply realizes that certain constraints stated in the problem are actually ridiculous.
For instance, if the goal was really to observe rabbits on the moon, the constraint that the instrument be on the earth is highly artificial.
Instead, one would relax that constraint, put a satellite above the atmosphere, satisfy one's rabbit fetish and the problem's solved :).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584611</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>tylerni7</author>
	<datestamp>1246731960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, let's say 1 Library of Congress is about 20TB, a measure of information.
If we want to convert that into Rabbits * arc length, a unit of temperature * arc seconds, we can use the laws of entropy.
<br> <br>
We know that entropy=k*ln(O) where k is the Boltzmann constant and O is the number of microstates of the system. If we really wanted, we could express the number of microstates as 1 LoC, since both are really just measuring information in one way or another.
<br> <br>
Now if you recall temperature = change in heat/change in entropy. The average body temperature of a rabbit is about 312 degrees kelvin according to google.
<br> <br>
To get a change in entropy and heat, we can look at both over an arbitrary time step t, so 312 K [one rabbit]=(heat/t)/(k*ln(2TB [one Library of Congress])/t)
<br> <br>
Solving for one Library of Congress, we get
one Library of Congress = e^(k*heat [in joules]/312 degrees K)=e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)
<br> <br>
Now assuming a rabbit is about 0.2 meters in diameter, at a distance of about 384,000 km, that's about 3*10^-8 degrees.
<br> <br>
So, putting that all together, the conversion factor is about e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)*1.1*10^5 arc seconds.
<br> <br>
Hope that clears things up for you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's say 1 Library of Congress is about 20TB , a measure of information .
If we want to convert that into Rabbits * arc length , a unit of temperature * arc seconds , we can use the laws of entropy .
We know that entropy = k * ln ( O ) where k is the Boltzmann constant and O is the number of microstates of the system .
If we really wanted , we could express the number of microstates as 1 LoC , since both are really just measuring information in one way or another .
Now if you recall temperature = change in heat/change in entropy .
The average body temperature of a rabbit is about 312 degrees kelvin according to google .
To get a change in entropy and heat , we can look at both over an arbitrary time step t , so 312 K [ one rabbit ] = ( heat/t ) / ( k * ln ( 2TB [ one Library of Congress ] ) /t ) Solving for one Library of Congress , we get one Library of Congress = e ^ ( k * heat [ in joules ] /312 degrees K ) = e ^ ( 4.4252x10 ^ -26 joules ^ 2/ ( degree kelvin ) ^ 2 ) Now assuming a rabbit is about 0.2 meters in diameter , at a distance of about 384,000 km , that 's about 3 * 10 ^ -8 degrees .
So , putting that all together , the conversion factor is about e ^ ( 4.4252x10 ^ -26 joules ^ 2/ ( degree kelvin ) ^ 2 ) * 1.1 * 10 ^ 5 arc seconds .
Hope that clears things up for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's say 1 Library of Congress is about 20TB, a measure of information.
If we want to convert that into Rabbits * arc length, a unit of temperature * arc seconds, we can use the laws of entropy.
We know that entropy=k*ln(O) where k is the Boltzmann constant and O is the number of microstates of the system.
If we really wanted, we could express the number of microstates as 1 LoC, since both are really just measuring information in one way or another.
Now if you recall temperature = change in heat/change in entropy.
The average body temperature of a rabbit is about 312 degrees kelvin according to google.
To get a change in entropy and heat, we can look at both over an arbitrary time step t, so 312 K [one rabbit]=(heat/t)/(k*ln(2TB [one Library of Congress])/t)
 
Solving for one Library of Congress, we get
one Library of Congress = e^(k*heat [in joules]/312 degrees K)=e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)
 
Now assuming a rabbit is about 0.2 meters in diameter, at a distance of about 384,000 km, that's about 3*10^-8 degrees.
So, putting that all together, the conversion factor is about e^(4.4252x10^-26 joules^2/(degree kelvin)^2)*1.1*10^5 arc seconds.
Hope that clears things up for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</id>
	<title>Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1246705620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings, not a millionth of a degree kelvin.   The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution, not sensitivity.   So essentially completely the opposite of what the Planck telescope does.</p><p>Sorry, just had to release my inner pedant - this was too good to resist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings , not a millionth of a degree kelvin .
The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution , not sensitivity .
So essentially completely the opposite of what the Planck telescope does.Sorry , just had to release my inner pedant - this was too good to resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings, not a millionth of a degree kelvin.
The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution, not sensitivity.
So essentially completely the opposite of what the Planck telescope does.Sorry, just had to release my inner pedant - this was too good to resist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585509</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>gphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1246793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging? </p></div><p>And what prevents you from inventing this capability for all of us, so that we are no longer disappointed? Just like the way you solved the streaming problem in the first place? Oh wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else dissapointed we do n't already have this capability ?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in ( optical ?
thermal ? ) imaging ?
And what prevents you from inventing this capability for all of us , so that we are no longer disappointed ?
Just like the way you solved the streaming problem in the first place ?
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical?
thermal?) imaging?
And what prevents you from inventing this capability for all of us, so that we are no longer disappointed?
Just like the way you solved the streaming problem in the first place?
Oh wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583141</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246709100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too much asparagus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too much asparagus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too much asparagus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586645</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246812720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When will the invasion come?"</p><p>Its already started!!   One of my cats killed a rabbit yesterday (and brought him in the house - damnit, they just don't get the concept of leaving their furry "toys" outside).  Chock one up for Earth in defeating the Massive Mutant Outer-space Rabbit Pre-invasion Group (MMORPG)!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When will the invasion come ?
" Its already started ! !
One of my cats killed a rabbit yesterday ( and brought him in the house - damnit , they just do n't get the concept of leaving their furry " toys " outside ) .
Chock one up for Earth in defeating the Massive Mutant Outer-space Rabbit Pre-invasion Group ( MMORPG ) ! !
: -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When will the invasion come?
"Its already started!!
One of my cats killed a rabbit yesterday (and brought him in the house - damnit, they just don't get the concept of leaving their furry "toys" outside).
Chock one up for Earth in defeating the Massive Mutant Outer-space Rabbit Pre-invasion Group (MMORPG)!!
:-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583747</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246717020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet people still ask who created God.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet people still ask who created God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet people still ask who created God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584021</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246721820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well as we all know:<p><div class="quote"><p>Hey diddle diddle,<br>
The cat and the fiddle,<br>
<b>The cow jumped over the moon,</b> <br>
The little dog laughed to see such fun,<br>
And the dish ran away with the spoon.</p></div><p>It seems to be well within the capability of current measurement techniques to determine whether bovines are leaping over natural satellites, so we should be able to figure out if a rodent is sitting on one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well as we all know : Hey diddle diddle , The cat and the fiddle , The cow jumped over the moon , The little dog laughed to see such fun , And the dish ran away with the spoon.It seems to be well within the capability of current measurement techniques to determine whether bovines are leaping over natural satellites , so we should be able to figure out if a rodent is sitting on one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well as we all know:Hey diddle diddle,
The cat and the fiddle,
The cow jumped over the moon, 
The little dog laughed to see such fun,
And the dish ran away with the spoon.It seems to be well within the capability of current measurement techniques to determine whether bovines are leaping over natural satellites, so we should be able to figure out if a rodent is sitting on one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583295</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rabbit will be at the temperature as its surroundings, because without an atmosphere, it's dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rabbit will be at the temperature as its surroundings , because without an atmosphere , it 's dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rabbit will be at the temperature as its surroundings, because without an atmosphere, it's dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583223</id>
	<title>Re:NPOV</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1246710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure that's even the worst infelicity of the summary. The start, "Launched in May, BBC" establishes that BBC (perhaps "the BBC") was launched in May.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that 's even the worst infelicity of the summary .
The start , " Launched in May , BBC " establishes that BBC ( perhaps " the BBC " ) was launched in May .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that's even the worst infelicity of the summary.
The start, "Launched in May, BBC" establishes that BBC (perhaps "the BBC") was launched in May.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583321</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>fatski</author>
	<datestamp>1246711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless our universe exists within something larger, with its own time. If there were universes prior to this one in that larger space then there would have been something before the big bang, regardless of our universes local time.

You might not think so, but really, nobody knows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless our universe exists within something larger , with its own time .
If there were universes prior to this one in that larger space then there would have been something before the big bang , regardless of our universes local time .
You might not think so , but really , nobody knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless our universe exists within something larger, with its own time.
If there were universes prior to this one in that larger space then there would have been something before the big bang, regardless of our universes local time.
You might not think so, but really, nobody knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582931</id>
	<title>Planck to measure variations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature doesn't turn out to be constant...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature does n't turn out to be constant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature doesn't turn out to be constant...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584335</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Lunar surface cycles between -200C (at the end of a night period) and up to +150C (at the end of day period).  So at some point in between the rabbit and the surface could be of identical temperature</p><p>Source http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/maan.html#12</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lunar surface cycles between -200C ( at the end of a night period ) and up to + 150C ( at the end of day period ) .
So at some point in between the rabbit and the surface could be of identical temperatureSource http : //www.astro.uu.nl/ ~ strous/AA/en/antwoorden/maan.html # 12</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lunar surface cycles between -200C (at the end of a night period) and up to +150C (at the end of day period).
So at some point in between the rabbit and the surface could be of identical temperatureSource http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/maan.html#12</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583737</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246716900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure what happened before the big bang is similar to what will happen after eternity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure what happened before the big bang is similar to what will happen after eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure what happened before the big bang is similar to what will happen after eternity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583121</id>
	<title>Algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while (measured\_age\_of\_the\_universe != 6000)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; launch a better satellite;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while ( measured \ _age \ _of \ _the \ _universe ! = 6000 )         launch a better satellite ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while (measured\_age\_of\_the\_universe != 6000)
        launch a better satellite;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"?  Time was created at the big bang."</p><p>That's certainly an interesting hypothesis. In what way do you propose we test it out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no " before the big bang " ?
Time was created at the big bang .
" That 's certainly an interesting hypothesis .
In what way do you propose we test it out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"?
Time was created at the big bang.
"That's certainly an interesting hypothesis.
In what way do you propose we test it out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585901</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246801920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must of took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. So, whats up Doc?<br>Obviously the devilbunny - Fudd war has escalated, and this "telescope" is really part of the fudd's sdi network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must of took a wrong turn at Albuquerque .
So , whats up Doc ? Obviously the devilbunny - Fudd war has escalated , and this " telescope " is really part of the fudd 's sdi network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must of took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
So, whats up Doc?Obviously the devilbunny - Fudd war has escalated, and this "telescope" is really part of the fudd's sdi network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583761</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>zMaile</author>
	<datestamp>1246717320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a metaphor?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a metaphor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a metaphor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585083</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>barath\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1246784940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....... the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..........  conversion factor </i> <br>
Libraries of Congress is a measure of amount of information. The more information is contained, the less the entropy. <p>
Heat difference provides also is quantified by entropy. So obviously the heat produced by the rabbit can be converted into libraries of congress.
<br>
The applicable equation is the first one in <a href="http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking\_entropy" title="scholarpedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking\_entropy</a> [scholarpedia.org] which relates entropy to the planck length
(to bring it back on topic of TFA). The actual conversion factor is left as an exercise to the reader<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
</p><p>
Yes, of course informational entropy vs thermodynamic entropy as in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction\_to\_entropy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction\_to\_entropy</a> [wikipedia.org], but the one is a function of the other per black hole theory. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking\_entropy) <br>

This is also clearly the reason why we perceive intelligence as hot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... <a href="http://www.mediamarksurveys.com/playboy/" title="mediamarksurveys.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mediamarksurveys.com/playboy/</a> [mediamarksurveys.com] </p><p>

So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... how <em> hot </em> is the Library of Congress anyway ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon ....... the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress .......... conversion factor Libraries of Congress is a measure of amount of information .
The more information is contained , the less the entropy .
Heat difference provides also is quantified by entropy .
So obviously the heat produced by the rabbit can be converted into libraries of congress .
The applicable equation is the first one in http : //www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking \ _entropy [ scholarpedia.org ] which relates entropy to the planck length ( to bring it back on topic of TFA ) .
The actual conversion factor is left as an exercise to the reader ... . Yes , of course informational entropy vs thermodynamic entropy as in http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction \ _to \ _entropy [ wikipedia.org ] , but the one is a function of the other per black hole theory .
( http : //www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking \ _entropy ) This is also clearly the reason why we perceive intelligence as hot .... http : //www.mediamarksurveys.com/playboy/ [ mediamarksurveys.com ] So .... how hot is the Library of Congress anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon ....... the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress ..........  conversion factor  
Libraries of Congress is a measure of amount of information.
The more information is contained, the less the entropy.
Heat difference provides also is quantified by entropy.
So obviously the heat produced by the rabbit can be converted into libraries of congress.
The applicable equation is the first one in http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking\_entropy [scholarpedia.org] which relates entropy to the planck length
(to bring it back on topic of TFA).
The actual conversion factor is left as an exercise to the reader ....

Yes, of course informational entropy vs thermodynamic entropy as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction\_to\_entropy [wikipedia.org], but the one is a function of the other per black hole theory.
(http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking\_entropy) 

This is also clearly the reason why we perceive intelligence as hot .... http://www.mediamarksurveys.com/playboy/ [mediamarksurveys.com] 

So .... how  hot  is the Library of Congress anyway ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582893</id>
	<title>Temperature scale?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that are about a million times smaller than one degree</p> </div><p>So approximately minus 999,999 degrees? What scale is that in?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background ( CMB ) that are about a million times smaller than one degree So approximately minus 999,999 degrees ?
What scale is that in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that are about a million times smaller than one degree So approximately minus 999,999 degrees?
What scale is that in?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1246705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want to know how long the rabbit's been sitting there.  I mean, is it still a living rabbit, and does it get hotter for a few seconds as it thrashes around without breath in the moon's almost nonexistent atmosphere?</p><p>Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get?  When will the invasion come?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want to know how long the rabbit 's been sitting there .
I mean , is it still a living rabbit , and does it get hotter for a few seconds as it thrashes around without breath in the moon 's almost nonexistent atmosphere ? Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get ?
When will the invasion come ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want to know how long the rabbit's been sitting there.
I mean, is it still a living rabbit, and does it get hotter for a few seconds as it thrashes around without breath in the moon's almost nonexistent atmosphere?Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get?
When will the invasion come?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583409</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>CosmeticLobotamy</author>
	<datestamp>1246712880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.</i></p><p>Stop.  Hammer time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably mean hammer time , the time that our time is embedded in.Stop .
Hammer time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.Stop.
Hammer time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>El Cubano</author>
	<datestamp>1246710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon</p></div></blockquote><p>Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?</p></div><p>I'm actually a little disappointed that this wasn't expressed in standard metric terms.  I thought here on Slashdot, the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress.  Is there a conversion factor or something we can apply here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we do n't already have this capability ? I 'm actually a little disappointed that this was n't expressed in standard metric terms .
I thought here on Slashdot , the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress .
Is there a conversion factor or something we can apply here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?I'm actually a little disappointed that this wasn't expressed in standard metric terms.
I thought here on Slashdot, the agreed upon standard was something in terms of libraries of congress.
Is there a conversion factor or something we can apply here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584043</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>ozbird</author>
	<datestamp>1246722480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?"</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion\_of\_the\_Moon\_Creatures" title="wikipedia.org">The Goodies</a> [wikipedia.org] dunnit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yeah , that and the obvious question of " what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon , and how did it get there ?
" The Goodies [ wikipedia.org ] dunnit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?
"
The Goodies [wikipedia.org] dunnit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</id>
	<title>rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246704360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon</p></div></blockquote><p>Is anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability? I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical? thermal?) imaging? I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really? Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we do n't already have this capability ?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in ( optical ?
thermal ? ) imaging ?
I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really ?
Not even a rabbit ( which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> comparable to measuring from Earth the heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the MoonIs anyone else dissapointed we don't already have this capability?
I can stream Top Gear in HD from youtube in faster than real time but we lag this far behind in (optical?
thermal?) imaging?
I know the atmosphere creates a lot of optical distortion... but really?
Not even a rabbit (which have unusually high body temps if I recall correctly)?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584923</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Sjefsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1246824540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what exactly is the temperature of a space rabbit anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what exactly is the temperature of a space rabbit anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what exactly is the temperature of a space rabbit anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582761</id>
	<title>Did you ever notice ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word "genitalia" contains "italia".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " genitalia " contains " italia " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "genitalia" contains "italia".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583819</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, no.   The variation in temperature between the rabbit and its surroundings is substantial.   The variance being measured in the microwave background are tiny.   The distinction between heat and temperature here doesn't matter (or if it does, you haven't yet explained why).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , no .
The variation in temperature between the rabbit and its surroundings is substantial .
The variance being measured in the microwave background are tiny .
The distinction between heat and temperature here does n't matter ( or if it does , you have n't yet explained why ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, no.
The variation in temperature between the rabbit and its surroundings is substantial.
The variance being measured in the microwave background are tiny.
The distinction between heat and temperature here doesn't matter (or if it does, you haven't yet explained why).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584323</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1246726260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get? When will the invasion come?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Now that we know of their retreat to the moon, make no mistake, they are building their numbers rapidly. The space rabbit invasion will come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get ?
When will the invasion come ?
Now that we know of their retreat to the moon , make no mistake , they are building their numbers rapidly .
The space rabbit invasion will come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or do scientists just know how hot SPACE RABBITS get?
When will the invasion come?
Now that we know of their retreat to the moon, make no mistake, they are building their numbers rapidly.
The space rabbit invasion will come.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583327</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together.<br>If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.</p></div><p>So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.</p><p>And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no " before the big bang " ?
Time was created at the big bang .
There is no " before time began " .
Before time , there is no before .
A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago .
Maybe very little like that .
Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon .
Hmmm... ok , very little like that , too .
How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number ?
Yes , more like that .
You get the gist .
Time is part of our universe .
The big bang created the universe , space and time together.If there was no big bang , then maybe there was something before whatever was then .
But if there was a big bang , there was nothing before that.So basically what you 're saying is that in the beginning , there was nothing , which exploded.And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"?
Time was created at the big bang.
There is no "before time began".
Before time, there is no before.
A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago.
Maybe very little like that.
Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon.
Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too.
How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number?
Yes, more like that.
You get the gist.
Time is part of our universe.
The big bang created the universe, space and time together.If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then.
But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</id>
	<title>Don't think so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246704420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They call that a cool space craft?  It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes.  It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".  Cool.  Bah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They call that a cool space craft ?
It does n't even have warp drive , let alone quantum torpedoes .
It does n't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase " reverse the polarity " .
Cool. Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call that a cool space craft?
It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes.
It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".
Cool.  Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582821</id>
	<title>Signature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246704840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sorry for the Inconvenience"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sorry for the Inconvenience "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sorry for the Inconvenience"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582867</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think so.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might actually have one or more peltier devices, which could definitely merit the phrase "reverse the polarity".(though, given the needs of the experiment, I suspect that reversing the polarity would be a terrible plan...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might actually have one or more peltier devices , which could definitely merit the phrase " reverse the polarity " .
( though , given the needs of the experiment , I suspect that reversing the polarity would be a terrible plan... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might actually have one or more peltier devices, which could definitely merit the phrase "reverse the polarity".
(though, given the needs of the experiment, I suspect that reversing the polarity would be a terrible plan...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583095</id>
	<title>Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth?</title>
	<author>LakeSolon</author>
	<datestamp>1246708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You did a lot of typing in your post. I think perhaps you could have saved a lot of it in your quest to enlightenment if you'd have chosen a text field on a different web page. May I suggest <a href="http://google.com/" title="google.com">http://google.com/</a> [google.com] and the phrase "earth sun l2"? The first link even has a very descriptive map. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did a lot of typing in your post .
I think perhaps you could have saved a lot of it in your quest to enlightenment if you 'd have chosen a text field on a different web page .
May I suggest http : //google.com/ [ google.com ] and the phrase " earth sun l2 " ?
The first link even has a very descriptive map .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian \ _point [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You did a lot of typing in your post.
I think perhaps you could have saved a lot of it in your quest to enlightenment if you'd have chosen a text field on a different web page.
May I suggest http://google.com/ [google.com] and the phrase "earth sun l2"?
The first link even has a very descriptive map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586547</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1246811700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yikes, it's fucking huge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yikes , it 's fucking huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yikes, it's fucking huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28587579</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1246822560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.</i></p><p>AIUT, there was dimensionless energy.  No length (1D), width (2D), depth (3D), or time (4D).  Then somebody exec'ed our universe.</p><p>People who understand math can show that time loops back on itself as it approaches time zero.  Hawking explains this far better than I could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically what you 're saying is that in the beginning , there was nothing , which exploded.AIUT , there was dimensionless energy .
No length ( 1D ) , width ( 2D ) , depth ( 3D ) , or time ( 4D ) .
Then somebody exec'ed our universe.People who understand math can show that time loops back on itself as it approaches time zero .
Hawking explains this far better than I could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.AIUT, there was dimensionless energy.
No length (1D), width (2D), depth (3D), or time (4D).
Then somebody exec'ed our universe.People who understand math can show that time loops back on itself as it approaches time zero.
Hawking explains this far better than I could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586415</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>infolation</author>
	<datestamp>1246810140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.</p></div><p>Won't somebody please think of the MoonRabbits</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it does n't have a pressure suit , O2 supply , or thermal protection.Wo n't somebody please think of the MoonRabbits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously it is suffering an agonizing demise since it doesn't have a pressure suit, O2 supply, or thermal protection.Won't somebody please think of the MoonRabbits
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583821</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1246718760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...there is no "before the big bang"?...</p><p>Bible says that God is eternal that is he has always existed and he created the universe. He may well have started it off with a bang. God is eternal and is not subject to time, space, gravity or any other quantifiable thing in this universe. This cannot be tested but can only be believed or disbelieved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...there is no " before the big bang " ? ...Bible says that God is eternal that is he has always existed and he created the universe .
He may well have started it off with a bang .
God is eternal and is not subject to time , space , gravity or any other quantifiable thing in this universe .
This can not be tested but can only be believed or disbelieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...there is no "before the big bang"?...Bible says that God is eternal that is he has always existed and he created the universe.
He may well have started it off with a bang.
God is eternal and is not subject to time, space, gravity or any other quantifiable thing in this universe.
This cannot be tested but can only be believed or disbelieved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582811</id>
	<title>One Planck telescope for mankind...</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1246704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pretty small telescope you have there, and it doesn't last very long either ; ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty small telescope you have there , and it does n't last very long either ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty small telescope you have there, and it doesn't last very long either ; ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584555</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>PacoCheezdom</author>
	<datestamp>1246730760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://images.google.com/images?&amp;q=aztek" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Aztek</a> [google.com] folklore? That  must be some prety brutally ugly stuff right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aztek [ google.com ] folklore ?
That must be some prety brutally ugly stuff right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aztek [google.com] folklore?
That  must be some prety brutally ugly stuff right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583341</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.<br>Like your time perception started when you were born from your mother, the time of our universe started when it was born from hammer space.</p><p>Please don't talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably mean hammer time , the time that our time is embedded in.Like your time perception started when you were born from your mother , the time of our universe started when it was born from hammer space.Please do n't talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably mean hammer time, the time that our time is embedded in.Like your time perception started when you were born from your mother, the time of our universe started when it was born from hammer space.Please don't talk about stuff you obviously know nothing about..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584177</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246724460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the energy content derived from burning a library of congress's worth of books? I propose this as the conversion factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the energy content derived from burning a library of congress 's worth of books ?
I propose this as the conversion factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the energy content derived from burning a library of congress's worth of books?
I propose this as the conversion factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965</id>
	<title>some 1.5 million km from Earth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system, L2, some 1.5 million km from Earth</i> </p><p>
Wait a second, the earth is roughly 93 million miles from the Sun. It's orbit should cover about about a 584 million mile circumference. And yet this claims a Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system is only 1.5 million km  from Earth (.932 million miles).  How can I have faith in anything this says when it reports the location of a Lagrange point so incorrectly? It's off by over 2 orders of magnitude!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system , L2 , some 1.5 million km from Earth Wait a second , the earth is roughly 93 million miles from the Sun .
It 's orbit should cover about about a 584 million mile circumference .
And yet this claims a Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system is only 1.5 million km from Earth ( .932 million miles ) .
How can I have faith in anything this says when it reports the location of a Lagrange point so incorrectly ?
It 's off by over 2 orders of magnitude !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Planck has been sent to an observation position around the second Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system, L2, some 1.5 million km from Earth 
Wait a second, the earth is roughly 93 million miles from the Sun.
It's orbit should cover about about a 584 million mile circumference.
And yet this claims a Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system is only 1.5 million km  from Earth (.932 million miles).
How can I have faith in anything this says when it reports the location of a Lagrange point so incorrectly?
It's off by over 2 orders of magnitude!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584703</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246734000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***whooooooooooooooosh***</p><p>If you were on the Moon, you would not have heard that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * whooooooooooooooosh * * * If you were on the Moon , you would not have heard that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***whooooooooooooooosh***If you were on the Moon, you would not have heard that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584121</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think so.</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1246723560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".</i></p><p>You can reverse the polarity on anything electrical. Just swap the positive and negative terminals. Don't ever expect to use many of those things you do that to ever again though. Most of the things that die will wimper but some higher voltage things will get dangerous and explode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase " reverse the polarity " .You can reverse the polarity on anything electrical .
Just swap the positive and negative terminals .
Do n't ever expect to use many of those things you do that to ever again though .
Most of the things that die will wimper but some higher voltage things will get dangerous and explode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".You can reverse the polarity on anything electrical.
Just swap the positive and negative terminals.
Don't ever expect to use many of those things you do that to ever again though.
Most of the things that die will wimper but some higher voltage things will get dangerous and explode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584315</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big Bunny is Watching!!!!<br>[Goodies reference for those who don't remember the 70's].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Bunny is Watching ! ! ! !
[ Goodies reference for those who do n't remember the 70 's ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Bunny is Watching!!!!
[Goodies reference for those who don't remember the 70's].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583807</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1246718340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...The big bang created...</p><p>So who created the Big Bang? The Bible says God created the Universe and that God has always existed.  The Bible says that God created the universe out of nothing and scientists say that the Big Bang came from a singularity. Where does the singularity come from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...The big bang created...So who created the Big Bang ?
The Bible says God created the Universe and that God has always existed .
The Bible says that God created the universe out of nothing and scientists say that the Big Bang came from a singularity .
Where does the singularity come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The big bang created...So who created the Big Bang?
The Bible says God created the Universe and that God has always existed.
The Bible says that God created the universe out of nothing and scientists say that the Big Bang came from a singularity.
Where does the singularity come from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584101</id>
	<title>Go north from the North Pole</title>
	<author>khchung</author>
	<datestamp>1246723380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simpler analogy would be to try to go north from the North Pole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A simpler analogy would be to try to go north from the North Pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simpler analogy would be to try to go north from the North Pole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584945</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246825320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pedantic???.... I???   (Alexei Sayle)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pedantic ? ? ? ... .
I ? ? ? ( Alexei Sayle )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pedantic???....
I???   (Alexei Sayle)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583061</id>
	<title>Re:some 1.5 million km from Earth?</title>
	<author>Mt.\_Honkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246708080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The distance in the article is correct.  Plank is at L2.  Perhaps you were thinking about L4 or L5 (both 1 AU away), or L3 (~2 AU away).
<p>
Wikipedia has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange\_point" title="wikipedia.org">excellent article</a> [wikipedia.org] describing each of the Legrangian points and why each of them is pseudo-stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distance in the article is correct .
Plank is at L2 .
Perhaps you were thinking about L4 or L5 ( both 1 AU away ) , or L3 ( ~ 2 AU away ) .
Wikipedia has an excellent article [ wikipedia.org ] describing each of the Legrangian points and why each of them is pseudo-stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distance in the article is correct.
Plank is at L2.
Perhaps you were thinking about L4 or L5 (both 1 AU away), or L3 (~2 AU away).
Wikipedia has an excellent article [wikipedia.org] describing each of the Legrangian points and why each of them is pseudo-stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1246706280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolution</p></div><p>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "<i>what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?</i>"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolutionWell yeah , that and the obvious question of " what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon , and how did it get there ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing interesting about measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon is resolutionWell yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582855</id>
	<title>Planck telescope</title>
	<author>Bromskloss</author>
	<datestamp>1246705380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <b>Planck telescope</b> is the smallest telescope that, according to our current understanding of nature, it is meaningful to speak about. This property sets the Planck telescope apart as the <i>natural unit</i> (also called <i>Planck unit</i>) for telescopes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Planck telescope is the smallest telescope that , according to our current understanding of nature , it is meaningful to speak about .
This property sets the Planck telescope apart as the natural unit ( also called Planck unit ) for telescopes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Planck telescope is the smallest telescope that, according to our current understanding of nature, it is meaningful to speak about.
This property sets the Planck telescope apart as the natural unit (also called Planck unit) for telescopes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583427</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1246713000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it is unintuitive and because our language is limited. You yourself just wrote:<blockquote><div><p>Before time, there is no before</p></div></blockquote><p>

Our language relates to the universe we live in so all we have is words like "before" whether we are talking about time or a causally related chain of states. For us they are the same thing.
<br> <br>
You may be right about time as we know it not existing until the big bang (and I say "may" on purpose, your statement was rather definitive for something that is really on the edge of our theory and understanding).
<br> <br>
That doesn't mean there wasn't something else which, in a causal sense, existed 'before' the big bang and resulted in it. It's difficult to talk about and difficult to conceptualise because both our language and science are based on describing, analyzing and explaining the universe as we do experience it. When we approach something fundamentally different from what we experience it gets very difficult indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is unintuitive and because our language is limited .
You yourself just wrote : Before time , there is no before Our language relates to the universe we live in so all we have is words like " before " whether we are talking about time or a causally related chain of states .
For us they are the same thing .
You may be right about time as we know it not existing until the big bang ( and I say " may " on purpose , your statement was rather definitive for something that is really on the edge of our theory and understanding ) .
That does n't mean there was n't something else which , in a causal sense , existed 'before ' the big bang and resulted in it .
It 's difficult to talk about and difficult to conceptualise because both our language and science are based on describing , analyzing and explaining the universe as we do experience it .
When we approach something fundamentally different from what we experience it gets very difficult indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is unintuitive and because our language is limited.
You yourself just wrote:Before time, there is no before

Our language relates to the universe we live in so all we have is words like "before" whether we are talking about time or a causally related chain of states.
For us they are the same thing.
You may be right about time as we know it not existing until the big bang (and I say "may" on purpose, your statement was rather definitive for something that is really on the edge of our theory and understanding).
That doesn't mean there wasn't something else which, in a causal sense, existed 'before' the big bang and resulted in it.
It's difficult to talk about and difficult to conceptualise because both our language and science are based on describing, analyzing and explaining the universe as we do experience it.
When we approach something fundamentally different from what we experience it gets very difficult indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583105</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Behind what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Behind what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behind what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583727</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think so.</title>
	<author>jmv</author>
	<datestamp>1246716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity"</p></div><p>Of course it does. I heard it's powered by AA batteries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase " reverse the polarity " Of course it does .
I heard it 's powered by AA batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity"Of course it does.
I heard it's powered by AA batteries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583005</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just disappointed they couldn't find a way to turn it into a car analogy instead of rabbits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just disappointed they could n't find a way to turn it into a car analogy instead of rabbits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just disappointed they couldn't find a way to turn it into a car analogy instead of rabbits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585089</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246785120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude! Same thing! <a href="http://www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/" title="vw.com">http://www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/</a> [vw.com] ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude !
Same thing !
http : //www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/ [ vw.com ] ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude!
Same thing!
http://www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/ [vw.com] ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584795</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think so.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246736040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a device like this, I'm certain they can reverse the polarity on something for some useful purpose.  Its just too complex for there not to be SOMETHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a device like this , I 'm certain they can reverse the polarity on something for some useful purpose .
Its just too complex for there not to be SOMETHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a device like this, I'm certain they can reverse the polarity on something for some useful purpose.
Its just too complex for there not to be SOMETHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582789</id>
	<title>That's pretty cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246704420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what else to say about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what else to say about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what else to say about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28589001</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246791960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we can figure it out once we understand what mass is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can figure it out once we understand what mass is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we can figure it out once we understand what mass is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583047</id>
	<title>In case you're wondering,</title>
	<author>robogobo</author>
	<datestamp>1246708020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's colder than a witch's titty (-273.04C).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's colder than a witch 's titty ( -273.04C ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's colder than a witch's titty (-273.04C).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582877</id>
	<title>Why a rabbit?</title>
	<author>Mishotaki</author>
	<datestamp>1246705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, it doesn't have a reason to go on the moon.... if they would give the mouse for example, i'm sure that little critter would love to be on the moon much more than a rabbit, so that it can eat all the cheeze there is there!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , it does n't have a reason to go on the moon.... if they would give the mouse for example , i 'm sure that little critter would love to be on the moon much more than a rabbit , so that it can eat all the cheeze there is there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, it doesn't have a reason to go on the moon.... if they would give the mouse for example, i'm sure that little critter would love to be on the moon much more than a rabbit, so that it can eat all the cheeze there is there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</id>
	<title>Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>leehwtsohg</author>
	<datestamp>1246709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together.<br>If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no " before the big bang " ?
Time was created at the big bang .
There is no " before time began " .
Before time , there is no before .
A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago .
Maybe very little like that .
Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon .
Hmmm... ok , very little like that , too .
How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number ?
Yes , more like that .
You get the gist .
Time is part of our universe .
The big bang created the universe , space and time together.If there was no big bang , then maybe there was something before whatever was then .
But if there was a big bang , there was nothing before that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"?
Time was created at the big bang.
There is no "before time began".
Before time, there is no before.
A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago.
Maybe very little like that.
Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon.
Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too.
How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number?
Yes, more like that.
You get the gist.
Time is part of our universe.
The big bang created the universe, space and time together.If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then.
But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heat != temperature.</p><p>The summary said "heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon". Somehow that went through your brain and came out as "measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon". So the problem is you, not the metaphor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heat ! = temperature.The summary said " heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon " .
Somehow that went through your brain and came out as " measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon " .
So the problem is you , not the metaphor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heat != temperature.The summary said "heat produced by a rabbit sitting on the Moon".
Somehow that went through your brain and came out as "measuring the temperature of a rabbit on the moon".
So the problem is you, not the metaphor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583239</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Mogster</author>
	<datestamp>1246710660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "<i>what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?</i>"</p></div><p>Obviously it should've taken that left turn at Albuquerque =)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yeah , that and the obvious question of " what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon , and how did it get there ?
" Obviously it should 've taken that left turn at Albuquerque = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?
"Obviously it should've taken that left turn at Albuquerque =)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584139</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>khchung</author>
	<datestamp>1246723860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For your statement to make sense, you assumed the same property "time" exists within and outside the universe, and that it made sense to connect the two.  It is like saying since Earth existed within something larger, there might be something due North of Earth's North Pole.</p><p>Unfortunately, North/South is a local property of Earth, while there is plenty space above the North Pole, you cannot go more north from the North Pole.  Similarly, spacetime is a property of our observable universe, and that property breaks down at Big Bang.  Trying to simply extrapolating spacetime from the universe to beyond is like trying to reach space by just keep going North on the Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For your statement to make sense , you assumed the same property " time " exists within and outside the universe , and that it made sense to connect the two .
It is like saying since Earth existed within something larger , there might be something due North of Earth 's North Pole.Unfortunately , North/South is a local property of Earth , while there is plenty space above the North Pole , you can not go more north from the North Pole .
Similarly , spacetime is a property of our observable universe , and that property breaks down at Big Bang .
Trying to simply extrapolating spacetime from the universe to beyond is like trying to reach space by just keep going North on the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For your statement to make sense, you assumed the same property "time" exists within and outside the universe, and that it made sense to connect the two.
It is like saying since Earth existed within something larger, there might be something due North of Earth's North Pole.Unfortunately, North/South is a local property of Earth, while there is plenty space above the North Pole, you cannot go more north from the North Pole.
Similarly, spacetime is a property of our observable universe, and that property breaks down at Big Bang.
Trying to simply extrapolating spacetime from the universe to beyond is like trying to reach space by just keep going North on the Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582939</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>nih</author>
	<datestamp>1246706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its too late, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069005/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">the invasion has begun!</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its too late , the invasion has begun !
[ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its too late, the invasion has begun!
[imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925</id>
	<title>NPOV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero."</p></div></blockquote><p>This is where the so-called "neutral point of view" ceases to be useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term " absolute zero .
" This is where the so-called " neutral point of view " ceases to be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just a tenth of a degree above what scientists term "absolute zero.
"This is where the so-called "neutral point of view" ceases to be useful.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584691</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1246733700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ever see a hot moon rabbit just don't look her in the eye for your sanity's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever see a hot moon rabbit just do n't look her in the eye for your sanity 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever see a hot moon rabbit just don't look her in the eye for your sanity's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584723</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1246734540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's fairly obvious - it's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide\_Rabbit" title="wikipedia.org">Suicide Rabbit</a> [wikipedia.org]. Obviously it hitched a ride on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar\_Reconnaissance\_Orbiter" title="wikipedia.org">LRO</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fairly obvious - it 's a Suicide Rabbit [ wikipedia.org ] .
Obviously it hitched a ride on the LRO [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fairly obvious - it's a Suicide Rabbit [wikipedia.org].
Obviously it hitched a ride on the LRO [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583279</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think so.</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1246711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm... If you reverse the polarity of the bolometers, you might be able to CAUSE galactic background noise rather than measuring it! This would disturb the subspace plextrons the borg craft uses for propulsion, causing it to self destruct!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... If you reverse the polarity of the bolometers , you might be able to CAUSE galactic background noise rather than measuring it !
This would disturb the subspace plextrons the borg craft uses for propulsion , causing it to self destruct !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... If you reverse the polarity of the bolometers, you might be able to CAUSE galactic background noise rather than measuring it!
This would disturb the subspace plextrons the borg craft uses for propulsion, causing it to self destruct!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585303</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1246789620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbids\_Go\_Home" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">It went home.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It went home .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It went home.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585009</id>
	<title>Re:Planck telescope</title>
	<author>Maelwryth</author>
	<datestamp>1246826760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we can call the first repair job, "Walking the Plank".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we can call the first repair job , " Walking the Plank " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we can call the first repair job, "Walking the Plank".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585443</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1246792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big bang is originally just a result of General Relativity, together with the observed fact of the expansion of the universe. If you put it into the equations, you find that at some time in the past, you get a singularity, that is, a point where the theory <em>fails</em>. Since the theory fails at that point, it <em>cannot make any statepents about that point</em>. Now <em>if</em> you assume that time is exactly what this theory describes, this means that time cannot be continue backwards through this point because actually the theory can't describe it. However, that assumption is not correct. We already <em>know</em> that General Relativity is only a good description of time away of the Planck scale. So if you define big bang as <em>exactly what General Relativity describes</em>, then the answer is simple: For that definition <em>there was no big bang, because the theory doesn't apply in that regime.</em></p><p>Now, when we speak about big bang today, we are actually speaking about a the expansion of the universe from a very small early state. That part is already well-established and experimentally well-tested. What happened at the time when the size of the universe was of the order of the Planck length, we don't know, because we don't yet have a well-tested theory of quantum gravitation. Therefore we simply cannot tell for sure if there was a time before big bang or not, or whether the question even makes sense.</p><p>However, even for the "pure GR big bang" I take issue at the claim that "time began at the big bang". General relativity describes the "GR universe" <em>up to</em> the initial singularity. The singularity itself isn't part of what the theory describes. That is, it describes times which are arbitrary close to the singularity, but it does <em>not</em> describe the "time zero". Therefore for any point in time (or rather in spacetime) GR describes, there's a point in the past of it. Therefore there strictly speaking <em>was no beginning</em>. Every single event did have a past. That's not a contradiction to the fact that there's only finite time before that event. Think of the positive numbers: Every positive number has a finite distance to zero (heck, the number <em>is</em> it's distance to zero), but for every positive number, there's another positive number even closer to zero. There's just no "beginning of positive numbers" - the positive numbers have an infimum, but not a minimum. And the same is true for the "pure GR big bang": While all space time points described by GR in a big bang solution are only a finite time after big bang, there's no time point <em>at</em> big bang. So in some sense, even in the pure GR there wasn't a beginning of time; the big bang never happened, but there's only an <em>after</em> the big bang; it's just that this after can get arbitrarily close to the big bang (remember, GR is still a classical theory, all variables are continuous). Therefore the big bang singularity had neither cause nor effect, because it isn't itself part of the space time. It only exists as a property of the "later" events. It's a limit, not a point in time or spacetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big bang is originally just a result of General Relativity , together with the observed fact of the expansion of the universe .
If you put it into the equations , you find that at some time in the past , you get a singularity , that is , a point where the theory fails .
Since the theory fails at that point , it can not make any statepents about that point .
Now if you assume that time is exactly what this theory describes , this means that time can not be continue backwards through this point because actually the theory ca n't describe it .
However , that assumption is not correct .
We already know that General Relativity is only a good description of time away of the Planck scale .
So if you define big bang as exactly what General Relativity describes , then the answer is simple : For that definition there was no big bang , because the theory does n't apply in that regime.Now , when we speak about big bang today , we are actually speaking about a the expansion of the universe from a very small early state .
That part is already well-established and experimentally well-tested .
What happened at the time when the size of the universe was of the order of the Planck length , we do n't know , because we do n't yet have a well-tested theory of quantum gravitation .
Therefore we simply can not tell for sure if there was a time before big bang or not , or whether the question even makes sense.However , even for the " pure GR big bang " I take issue at the claim that " time began at the big bang " .
General relativity describes the " GR universe " up to the initial singularity .
The singularity itself is n't part of what the theory describes .
That is , it describes times which are arbitrary close to the singularity , but it does not describe the " time zero " .
Therefore for any point in time ( or rather in spacetime ) GR describes , there 's a point in the past of it .
Therefore there strictly speaking was no beginning .
Every single event did have a past .
That 's not a contradiction to the fact that there 's only finite time before that event .
Think of the positive numbers : Every positive number has a finite distance to zero ( heck , the number is it 's distance to zero ) , but for every positive number , there 's another positive number even closer to zero .
There 's just no " beginning of positive numbers " - the positive numbers have an infimum , but not a minimum .
And the same is true for the " pure GR big bang " : While all space time points described by GR in a big bang solution are only a finite time after big bang , there 's no time point at big bang .
So in some sense , even in the pure GR there was n't a beginning of time ; the big bang never happened , but there 's only an after the big bang ; it 's just that this after can get arbitrarily close to the big bang ( remember , GR is still a classical theory , all variables are continuous ) .
Therefore the big bang singularity had neither cause nor effect , because it is n't itself part of the space time .
It only exists as a property of the " later " events .
It 's a limit , not a point in time or spacetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big bang is originally just a result of General Relativity, together with the observed fact of the expansion of the universe.
If you put it into the equations, you find that at some time in the past, you get a singularity, that is, a point where the theory fails.
Since the theory fails at that point, it cannot make any statepents about that point.
Now if you assume that time is exactly what this theory describes, this means that time cannot be continue backwards through this point because actually the theory can't describe it.
However, that assumption is not correct.
We already know that General Relativity is only a good description of time away of the Planck scale.
So if you define big bang as exactly what General Relativity describes, then the answer is simple: For that definition there was no big bang, because the theory doesn't apply in that regime.Now, when we speak about big bang today, we are actually speaking about a the expansion of the universe from a very small early state.
That part is already well-established and experimentally well-tested.
What happened at the time when the size of the universe was of the order of the Planck length, we don't know, because we don't yet have a well-tested theory of quantum gravitation.
Therefore we simply cannot tell for sure if there was a time before big bang or not, or whether the question even makes sense.However, even for the "pure GR big bang" I take issue at the claim that "time began at the big bang".
General relativity describes the "GR universe" up to the initial singularity.
The singularity itself isn't part of what the theory describes.
That is, it describes times which are arbitrary close to the singularity, but it does not describe the "time zero".
Therefore for any point in time (or rather in spacetime) GR describes, there's a point in the past of it.
Therefore there strictly speaking was no beginning.
Every single event did have a past.
That's not a contradiction to the fact that there's only finite time before that event.
Think of the positive numbers: Every positive number has a finite distance to zero (heck, the number is it's distance to zero), but for every positive number, there's another positive number even closer to zero.
There's just no "beginning of positive numbers" - the positive numbers have an infimum, but not a minimum.
And the same is true for the "pure GR big bang": While all space time points described by GR in a big bang solution are only a finite time after big bang, there's no time point at big bang.
So in some sense, even in the pure GR there wasn't a beginning of time; the big bang never happened, but there's only an after the big bang; it's just that this after can get arbitrarily close to the big bang (remember, GR is still a classical theory, all variables are continuous).
Therefore the big bang singularity had neither cause nor effect, because it isn't itself part of the space time.
It only exists as a property of the "later" events.
It's a limit, not a point in time or spacetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582873</id>
	<title>I'll bet there's plenty of polarity to reverse</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1246705620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They call that a cool space craft?  It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes.  It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase <b>"reverse the polarity".</b>  Cool.  Bah!</p></div><p>Dude, you can reverse the polarity on anything with a DC circuit.  Sometimes, with spectacular results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They call that a cool space craft ?
It does n't even have warp drive , let alone quantum torpedoes .
It does n't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase " reverse the polarity " .
Cool. Bah ! Dude , you can reverse the polarity on anything with a DC circuit .
Sometimes , with spectacular results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call that a cool space craft?
It doesn't even have warp drive, let alone quantum torpedoes.
It doesn't even have anything onboard to which you could apply the phase "reverse the polarity".
Cool.  Bah!Dude, you can reverse the polarity on anything with a DC circuit.
Sometimes, with spectacular results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584811</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it so hard for people to understand?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246736280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prove it.</p><p>Oh, wait, thats part of what they are trying to do isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove it.Oh , wait , thats part of what they are trying to do is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove it.Oh, wait, thats part of what they are trying to do isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583069</id>
	<title>Now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is the rabbit alive or not? And who wants to look?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the rabbit alive or not ?
And who wants to look ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the rabbit alive or not?
And who wants to look?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583445</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>Kratisto</author>
	<datestamp>1246713120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno. What's the temperature of the library of congress? How long can it maintain that temperature if we put it on the moon, and for how long has it been on the moon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
What 's the temperature of the library of congress ?
How long can it maintain that temperature if we put it on the moon , and for how long has it been on the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
What's the temperature of the library of congress?
How long can it maintain that temperature if we put it on the moon, and for how long has it been on the moon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582971</id>
	<title>The ESA is awesome.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html" title="esa.int" rel="nofollow">European Space Agency</a> [esa.int] (ESA) is an admirable organization.  It has achieved numerous technological firsts.
<p>
Why have the Europeans achieved so much for humanity, yet the Africans have achieved so little?
</p><p>
Note that the ESA has a policy opposing affirmative action.  Unlike NASA (in the USA), ESA does not give preferential treatment on the basis of skin color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The European Space Agency [ esa.int ] ( ESA ) is an admirable organization .
It has achieved numerous technological firsts .
Why have the Europeans achieved so much for humanity , yet the Africans have achieved so little ?
Note that the ESA has a policy opposing affirmative action .
Unlike NASA ( in the USA ) , ESA does not give preferential treatment on the basis of skin color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The European Space Agency [esa.int] (ESA) is an admirable organization.
It has achieved numerous technological firsts.
Why have the Europeans achieved so much for humanity, yet the Africans have achieved so little?
Note that the ESA has a policy opposing affirmative action.
Unlike NASA (in the USA), ESA does not give preferential treatment on the basis of skin color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885</id>
	<title>Re:rabit from the moon</title>
	<author>RyanFenton</author>
	<datestamp>1246705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon\_rabbit" title="wikipedia.org">Japanese and Aztek folklore</a> [wikipedia.org], a rabbit has been there for a long time.  I could never really make out the face or the rabbit in the moon's craters when I look.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Japanese and Aztek folklore [ wikipedia.org ] , a rabbit has been there for a long time .
I could never really make out the face or the rabbit in the moon 's craters when I look.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Japanese and Aztek folklore [wikipedia.org], a rabbit has been there for a long time.
I could never really make out the face or the rabbit in the moon's craters when I look.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586747</id>
	<title>Re:Worst metaphor ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246814100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "<i>what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?</i>"</p></div><p>Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone seen Fluffy?<br>
<br>
There was this bully and he wanted my lunch money. But I listened to my mom and said no you can't have it! He said he'd get me back somehow but... nevermind... I don't care about that right now... I lost my poor bunny!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yeah , that and the obvious question of " what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon , and how did it get there ?
" Sorry to go off-topic , but has anyone seen Fluffy ?
There was this bully and he wanted my lunch money .
But I listened to my mom and said no you ca n't have it !
He said he 'd get me back somehow but... nevermind... I do n't care about that right now... I lost my poor bunny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yeah, that and the obvious question of "what the hell is a rabbit doing on the moon, and how did it get there?
"Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone seen Fluffy?
There was this bully and he wanted my lunch money.
But I listened to my mom and said no you can't have it!
He said he'd get me back somehow but... nevermind... I don't care about that right now... I lost my poor bunny!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28589001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28587579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28590173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_201200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28590173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583045
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586415
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582885
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28586645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28585443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28587579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28589001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28583279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28584795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_201200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_201200.28582807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
